What is the context of that?
If you really don't know who George Floyd was and what followed his death, I truly envy you.
If you're asking about the context of the youtube video, it's the main defense lawyer cross-examining one of the state's witnesses. The witness was one of the people present at the scene, who were, uhm, trying to persuade Chauvin (the cop and main defendant in the case) to stop kneeling on Floyd through various means. One of them was telling Chauvin that his masculinity did not increase by kneeling on a handcuffed man and calling him a "****ing ***** ass *****" for doing so . This is all on video. The defense lawyer quoted the witness' words back to him and forced him to admit he said them. This is part of one of the prongs of the defense: that the crowd was belligerent and threatening towards Chauvin and the other cops, thus justifying what might otherwise appear as an excessive use of force.
The trial is expected to go for a few weeks, the highlights so far:
All witness called so far were state witnesses (there's hundreds of witnesses on the official list, but only a fraction will be actually called, most likely) , but the defense managed to score some points.
State's wins:
- Chauvin's supervisor and instructor says that the total time knelt on Floyd was excessive and against the department's training and manual
- old Black man who was present at the scene, breaks down and cries during his testimony
Defense's wins:
- getting Floyd's girlfriend to admit they were both opiate addicts and that Floyd had overdosed on them before.
- making one of the witnesses who were in the crowd seems a little hysterical and neurotic, even the judge had to tell her to calm down.
So far the state is doing better, but it's their evidence for now, so it makes sense. The defense will almost certainly lean heavily on the first autopsy that said Floyd died from cardiac arrest (instead of asphyxiation) and that he had massive levels of fentanyl in blood. The second autopsy says asphyxiation was the main cause of death, but didn't do toxicology. Other than arguing about evidence of trauma on the windpipes and blood vessels, the defense has already floated the claim that when asphyxiated, people lose consciousness within seconds, while Floyd was conscious and talking for the vast majority of the time he was knelt on. Of course, asphyxiation could occurr later on, Chauvin could simply lean into the position more later on.
The defense seems fairly confident and proactive, they might be going for a full acquittal (all jurors agree to let go) instead of the "conservative" strategy of going for a mistrial (jurors can't reach agreement).
No, but seriously, castrated and soulless as the lingo is, the idea behind it is essentially right.
