Eric Nelson, Nine Minutes, Ten Minutes discussed on The Glenn Beck Program
I think he would be in a better position now. His defense attorney eric nelson. I think a largely did a very good job and of course he's the guy in court actually doing the job so i hate to be Armchair quarterback but There were arguments to be made here. That i think would have been much more effective. That were not made. I mean the critical period. That really matters here is not the nine minutes and twenty nine seconds that they keep talking about because floyd was alive for almost all of that. It's not until the last ninety seconds that any of the officers have a reason to believe that he might not be breathing or there might not be a post. The last ninety seconds before the paramedics show up. That's the real Sensitive point for the defense. Why was he still restraining him. Then and not providing cpr in that ninety seconds of our on the jury. That's the question. I would want answer because up until that point floyd was still alive. He wasn't dead yet and did anybody answer that defense. Answer that at all. The defense raised facts that were relevant to answering that question but they never seem to pull it together into a cohesive. Answer for the jury. It's almost like they're they see it. So they expect the jury will see it but any stations on complicated topics. You know you have to build the narrative you have to hand. The jury completed explanation. You can't expect them to do the work to arrive at the view of events that you have so you say that murder in the second degree if he was if they do find that he was committing a felony then murdering the second degree is likely to happen yes. They conclude that he committed the felony third degree assault under minnesota law then then then felony murder. He's done all. They have to prove for felony murder. So i my will gut would say that. That's the way it's gonna come down if it comes down to that one question on on whether or not You know that last ninety seconds Was answered for correctly. I just i think it's just too much emotion and and And as you point out not enough answering of that question right. I think he gets that. I mean if it were me on the jury i would have no hesitation in voting. Not guilty on this. I have more than sufficient reasonable doubt but as an attorney what some expertise in this area. I perhaps see things differently than we could reasonably expect. So's jurors seizing there. So not low experts. Why would you vote not guilty. Because i don't think the use of force was authorized. I don't think it was unlawful. I think it might not have been trained but that's different than being unlawful conduct. I think that was a reasonable use of force under the circumstances. I don't believe he was choking the life or crushing. The life of george floyd. I don't think there's evidence that the only evidence of that is that floyd ended up dying but there are alternative explanations for floyd to that that are consistent with not having been caused by joe vans knee including the ninety percent blockage of coronary artery pathological hypertension the enlarge part the fennel the meth that decision to fight lease for ten minutes. Any of those things could have killed floyd without show knee having been substantial contributing factor to flights that okay so murder in the third degree. Did they make this case. What were the strengths and weaknesses of that But again at that all hinges on the use of force being unauthorized..