ABC News' coverage of the FLOYD closing arguments today - an (uninformed) critique to be schooled

[UTUSN]

I have only kept up with the headlines in the regular news reports. So today when coverage of the closing arguments began I was taken aback when David MUIR passed the introduction to a (reporter?) who launched into non-trial (context?) of "perceptions" of race relations, accompanied by pictures of the deceased. I don't pretend to - *ANY* - Legal or Journalism authority, but sort of expected to be informed about the events and mechanics about to happen.

*** And to add to my frivolous bent, where is STEPHANOPOULOS? There have been news or gossip items for a couple of months that there is blatant rivalry between him and MUIR.

Now, to me, the prosecutor is opening with jarring pauses, talking-down, loaded language to a maudlin level. I suppose I'll be told it's what he's supposed to do. ***ON EDIT: Instead of, say, appealing to reason and talking to the jury as adults.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

1. I kind of expected more from prosecutor

So far just retrying imo

[Ninga]

3. Prosecutor doing a terrific job. Carefully culling out

the nonsense of the defense.
Given the judge’s clear instructions, the prosecutor is careful, clear, and guiding jurors out of weeds and into the use of force for
9:29 min

[UTUSN]

4. Thanks, looks like we're out-voted!1

[Treefrog]

11. I wanted the other prosecutor. I liked the way he interacted with the jury and the witnesses.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. These cases are meant to be tried in people's heads, but the verdicts are always swayed by people's

hearts. So far the prosecution is doing a fine job hitting both.

[UTUSN]

5. O.K. - seems like the core question is, "Would he have died if not accosted by knee. Period."

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. Not really.

For second degree unintentional felony murder, the state must prove, essentially:
* Chauvin caused Floyd's death while trying to commit assault in the third degree, which does not require intent to kill or bodily harm, only that the defendant intended to commit assault and it led to Floyd's death.

For murder in the third degree, the state has to prove:
* Chauvin committed an intentional act that was imminently dangerous to someone else with reckless regard to human life.

For manslaughter in the second degree, the state has to prove:
* Chauvin created unreasonable risk and took the chance of causing death through his intentional conduct that a prudent person would see as dangerous.

He can be found not guilty if the jury decides the use of force was authorized by law. If you want a core question, it's more whether a person would find the kneeling by Chauvin as "unreasonable."

[UTUSN]

7. Would he have died that day without the knee, causation. Was the knee beyond what is allowed,

therefore, intentional.

As I humbly say, am only going by my non-Legal sense.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. When it comes to rendering a verdict, a "non-Legal sense" is exactly what isn't needed,

but okay.

[UTUSN]

9. I'll capitulate & depart, but sense a contradiction here from your opening statement, where

you said, "...tried in people's heads, but the verdicts are always swayed by people's hearts."

Sounds totally non-Legal.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Not looking for a capitulation, and no contradiction at all.

There's a lot of room between what a perfect jury should do, and what lawyers know human juries will do.

[UTUSN]

12. Well, countering every point for the last word looks like "winning" against a capitulation!1

But that's only my *sense* - haha!1