Trail begins for the 3 officers involved in George Floyd’s murder

That’s a pathetic defense…

Source: KEREM YUCEL / Getty

As we reported last week, the trial for the 3 other former officers, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao, involved in George Floyd’s murder has begun now that the jury selection is finalized. Lawyers from both sides are making their opening arguments and the defense attorneys are using some very weak ideas to keep the bacon boys from going up the river. One of which is the fact that Derek Chauvin was somehow Thanos and these other officers were merely his children, doing as they were told.

Like they aren’t grown-a** men themselves.

According to the AP, this is what lawyers expect to keep these killer accomplices free:

But one defense attorney countered during opening statements of the former officers’ trial that Chauvin called “all of the shots” as the senior officer at the scene and criticized the Minneapolis Police Department for doing too little to train officers to intervene when a colleague should be stopped. Another officer’s attorney focused on Floyd’s struggle with police before they restrained him. And an attorney for the third officer said his client raised concerns about the restraint of Floyd, but was rebuffed.

Fortunately, the prosecution is making a very compelling case as to why these excuses are unacceptable when it comes to life and death situations like this.

For second after second, minute after minute, these three CPR-trained defendants stood or knelt next to Officer Chauvin as he slowly killed George Floyd right in front of them,” prosecutor Samantha Trepel, who works for the Justice Department’s civil rights division, told the jury during opening statements. “They chose not to protect George Floyd, the man they had handcuffed and placed in their custody.”

It actually makes it worse that one officer is claiming that he was “rebuffed”. It essentially acknowledges that he knew that Chauvin was wrong and did the bare minimum to save Floyd’s life.

Defense attorney’s are calling the murder a “tragedy” but then qualifying it with statements like “however, a tragedy is not a crime.”

We beg to differ.