BREAKING: Chauvin Lawyer Plays Clip of George Floyd Allegedly Saying ‘I Ate Too Many Drugs’ (VIDEO)


By Cassandra Fairbanks | 7 April 2021

GATEWAY PUNDIT — Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyers played audio of George Floyd allegedly saying “I ate too many drugs,” while being detained.

The video clip was presented during cross examination of Los Angeles Police Sgt. Jody Stiger, a paid witness for the state, who claims that “no force should have been used” on Floyd.

Defense attorney Eric J. Nelson countered that Floyd was saying “I can’t breathe,” while resisting being put into the cop car — before Chauvin’s knee was anywhere near him.

“If somebody is saying, ‘I can’t breathe,’ and they’re passing out and they’re not resisting, that’s one form of an analysis, right, because the actions of the suspect are consistent with the verbal utterances he’s making, right?” Nelson asked.

“Other times and in this particular case, when Mr. Floyd was initially saying that he couldn’t breathe, he was actively resisting arrest initially when he was in the back seat of the vehicle, right?” he continued. […]

13 Comments on BREAKING: Chauvin Lawyer Plays Clip of George Floyd Allegedly Saying ‘I Ate Too Many Drugs’ (VIDEO)

  1. If Chauvin had one active brain cell, he would have taken his knee off Floyd’s neck when he saw he was being filmed.
    There are 2 problems that need to be dealt with!
    (1)Black Americans have no respect for Law & Order.
    (2) Police forget that they are to be the upholders of the Law, not gunslingers.

    • IT IS FAKE! Does the person with the knee on Floyd look like the guy on trial to you? I see at least a 10 year difference. Nothing adds up in this case..and if it dont fit you must acquit!

    • >he would have taken his knee off Floyd’s neck

      Or maybe since he was there he knew a knee on the neck/back as he was doing it did not restrict the airway (this tactic is not uncommon, and the purpose is not to restrict the airway), hence it didn’t matter how long his knee was there; his full weight was not on Floyd — anyway, aside from filming, your specific point was more or less already covered in the trial, when on cross-examination a prosecution witness agreed that it’s allowed standard practice to continue to subdue a suspect who resisted arrest even after the suspect is no longer resisting, especially when it’s a man as big and powerful as George Floyd — because they could be faking it and immediately resist again with full fury as soon as the cops let up.

  2. Generally Gateway Pundit is Trumptard HQ, full of retarded boomer nonsense.

    People who get excited about things like this and e.g. the defense friendly contributions of Andrew Branca on ‘Legal Insurrection’ (link) need to keep one thing in mind: what matters is the jury’s decision at the end of the trial — and the enormous difficulties of finding Chauvin ‘not proven guilty to beyond a reasonable doubt’ should be obvious to everyone, and these without question include the fears of jurors that will have to enter the witness protection program/be unable to lead a normal life if they don’t find him guilty — it’s not clear if the jury will have the option of considering a lesser charge (overcharging due to political pressure in these high profile cases is common).

    • For me the actual proceeding speaks for itself and Legal Insurrection has aggregated them. I don’t need them to process this for me as I can lay my own eyes on it. What stands out is the non-cartoon world presentation of the case by the defense especially Eric Nelson. It is far cry from the Lugenpresse version. I don’t imagine too many zombies or pajama people will watch this like I have. Thus when the verdict comes back as it should as 3rd degree manslaughter, they shouldn’t be surprised if they followed the trial and just how weak the Prosecution murder case was.

    • >it’s not clear if the jury will have the option of considering a lesser charge

      The answer appears to be ‘Yes’ — it looks like the state ‘threw the book’ at Chauvin, hoping that at least one charge will stick.

      Here Jeannie Suk Gersen, a Harvard law professor (link) explains it to the rubes:

      The Simple Facts of Derek Chauvin’s TrialIn the case of the police officer who killed George Floyd, the defense’s best hope is to instill doubt about what jurors can plainly see.

      LOL — as you can see, she and the editors of ‘The New Yorker’ have already made up their minds about the cause of Floyd’s death: Chauvin “killed George Floyd” — and here you are, with your quaint notions about ‘due process’ and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ — keep in mind this woman is a prof at Harvard Law.

      None of the charges against Chauvin demand proof that he actually intended to kill Floyd. The most serious, second-degree murder, requires the prosecution to prove that Chauvin’s kneeling on Floyd’s neck was a felony assault that caused Floyd’s death. A lesser charge, third-degree murder, requires proof that the act caused Floyd’s death and was “eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” The least serious of the charges, second-degree manslaughter, requires proof that Chauvin displayed “culpable negligence,” creating an unreasonable risk, and that he consciously took “chances of causing death or great bodily harm.”

      As an aside, Suk seems to be another very successful member of the ‘model minority’ whose sympathies largely lie with the criminal underclass, and not with white America, the benefits of which she enjoys (she’s an immigrant) — while she’s willing to inflict George Floyds on the rest of us, including street cops, she herself keeps as far away from them as possible: per the White Pages (link, she lives in West Cambridge MA, which is 87% white (link) and full of million dollar homes.

    • The verdict is in: guilty on all counts — I am not at all surprised, albeit a conviction on one of the lesser charges was also formally possible — so all of the (alleged) ‘good’ days for and points scored by the defense amounted to nothing in the end; not little, or too little, but nothing.

      As I also suggested elsewhere, it was a no-brainer to see this was always going to be a no-win situation for Whites and white America: no matter the outcome, it could and would only serve to further the narrative of an irredeemable, ‘institutionally racist’ America that must be deconstructed by subjugating Whites, demoralizing psychologically immature white children by teaching them about their ‘privilege’, and to be ashamed of their forefathers; ashamed of who they are, their ‘whiteness’ — augmented by the physical erasure of white history: the removal of statues and portraits, renaming of schools, streets, government buildings/installations, etc etc.

      All of this is very dangerous for Whites (see Rhodesia and South Africa), all the more so because so few of them seem to recognize it; all too many seemingly prefer willful ignorance.

      • For the über-pessimistic, perhaps even defeatist, view of it (link): No, we are not a majority. Most people in this territory hate you. The nonwhites hate you and they are now close to 45% of the population. Then you have 20% of whites who hate the “bad whites” which means they team up with the nonwhites. Then you have the fact that the majority of people under the age of 30 are nonwhite. The typical white person is 58. The typical black person is 28. The typical nonwhite immigrant is 7. Your children and grandchildren will live as hated minorities in this territory. You need to come to terms with that.

      • It seems the verdict is nonsensical, since at least one of the counts involves intent, while at least one does not — how can someone be guilty of a killing that is both intentional and unintentional at the same time? — a legal/logical farce.

    • >… not little, or too little, but nothing.

      I should add that I see the fact the venue was not changed, and the jury was not sequestered, as more than ample grounds for appeal (never mind what went on in the courtroom during the trial).

      Most of the country, if not the world, must be getting psychologically exhausted by all of this — but I think that’s also part of the plan: psychologically pummel Whites until enough of them are unable to resist anymore.

  3. This is a Mock trial the person playing George Floyd is not dead. The entire event is staged. The truth will come out eventually.

  4. White Man Can’t Breathea man named Tony Timpa who cried for help more than 30 times as Dallas police officers pinned his neck to the ground. Before he died, Timpa shouted repeatedly, “You’re gonna kill me!” … And kill him the police officers did. After Timpa became unconscious, the officers who had him cuffed assumed he was asleep. As the minutes passed, the officers joked about waking him up for school and making him waffles for breakfast. … Body camera footage shows first responders waited at least four minutes after Timpa became unresponsive to begin CPR. Even worse, the police officers pinned his handcuffed arms behind his back for nearly 14 minutes and zip-tied his legs together. Shortly after he was loaded onto a gurney and put into an ambulance, Timpa was pronounced dead.

    How many people have heard of this case? — here’s a graphic comparing the death of Tony Timpa to that of George Floyd — link

Post a Comment

Winter Watch