Designed To Cement A Mob Riot On Cue- Testimony The Media Has NOT Covered in Chauvin Trial.

On day 8 of the Derek Chauvin trial, a stunning piece of evidence was revealed.

“Initially, according to the state witness MMA ‘expert’ Williams, the placement of the knee on the neck constituted a ‘blood choke,’ a use of deadly force upon Floyd. Later, the prosecution argued that this was constricting Floyd’s ability to breath, initially by compression of the neck, later by compression of Floyd’s whole body, and then all that augmented by purported ‘positional asphyxia.’

This line of argument took a body blow from the defense, however, when Nelson began displaying images of the knee placement from different angles showing that Chauvin’s knee appeared to be on Floyd’s shoulders and back, rather than on Floyd’s neck. Indeed, Lt. Mercil, the state’s expert on MPD use-of-force training and policy explicitly agreed on cross-examination that this appeared to be the case.”

It appears that the camera angle on the picture we have all seen is deceptive.


Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s back – not on his neck – and therefore, there was no possible way it could’ve caused George Floyd to die. Steve Crowder further explored this in his video (the experiment starts at 1 hour 34 minutes).

I spoke to a few people about this last night, and they all were taken by surprise.  They said they never heard about Chauvin’s knee being on Floyd’s back rather than on his neck.  This is the most important development of the whole case, yet it has never even been mentioned by the mainstream media.  Only a few media outlets, including Right Wire Report, reported it accurately.

There are no arguments presented by the defense that will be accurately reported to you by the mainstream media.  There are several facts already presented that would put a reasonable doubt in the mind of any honest juror.

Diving legally deeper with sworn testimony-The media narrative is crafted to ensure the public gains no insight into the key legal aspects of this case. Watch specific sworn statements under oath on these critical issues:

  • Manner of death – Chokehold vs. Neck restraint Per policy,
  • Unresponsive vs. responsive and not breathing.
  • Resisting -what the police manual instructs about a person who momentarily appears unresponsive but can become active rapidly and become a threat.
  • E.M.S. was called by officers for a NON-Emergent situation ( mouth injury.) 
  • Floyd was resisting to such a degree over the 90- minute event that  the officers discussed using the “hobble device” but chose lesser restraint which is in itself a de- escalation.
  • The Prosecution’s expert witness testimony is PAID testimony. For a review of informative cross-examination videos of expert witness Stiger, view here.
  • The current version of the police department’s policy manual, which was revised in response to Floyd’s death, prohibits the use of neck restraints. But at the time of Floyd’s arrest, police were allowed to use neck restraints in certain circumstances. New evidence in court shows a knee on the upper back.
  • Minneapolis Police Chief testifies a knee was not on the neck in the video shown after previously testifying for the prosecution that Chauvin’s knee on the neck was excessive force and violated policy.
  • If the prosecution ignores where the knee was – and stakes the case on neglect to respond quick enough to an unresponsive person in custody ( 1-4 min) after using ” excessive force” this legal definition will remain in play. The manual defined a neck restraint as “compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck).” In one version of the technique, “the subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure.” That technique, a.k.a. a “sleeper hold,” requires applying pressure to both sides of the neck, cutting off blood flow to the brain. Another kind of neck restraint aims to “control” the subject, rather than making him pass out, by “only applying light to moderate pressure.” If the object was a sleeper hold to stop resisting then the simple act of becoming unresponsive would not be an alarm rather the outcome expected.
  • Per Police Policy( Use of force)- active aggressive vs, active resistance





None of the arguments that are detrimental to the prosecution’s case will be accurately reported by the criminal enterprise that you know as American media.  They know that the murder conviction is unlikely, and the riots are coming. The rationale for adding the lesser charge of negligent manslaughter was to give the jury a way to deliver the mob something to satiate their blood lust and nothing to do with the merits of the prosecution’s case. The media are now gaslighting the public with skewed coverage, so if the lesser charge comes down, the mob will not be satisfied, and while the city burns will claim he got off!  The media’s modus operandi right now is to justify the chaos and destruction that is currently being organized all over the country by Black Lives Matter.


Update: Here is a good summary video of how the defense is effectively disputing the prosecution witnesses claims:

 RWR original article syndication source.



Share this:

What do you think?

10 Points
Upvote Downvote

Posted by Tatyana Larina

Tatyana Larina comes from my favorite work of poetry.  And that's the only time you'll see me quoting Wikipedia as a source.

I came to the US in 1991, lived in San Francisco for 5 years, and I have a Computer Science degree.  I worked in software industry for several years, later switching to a career of a full time mom, and I never looked back.

In my younger days, I wasn’t a conservative. That is not to say that I was ever a liberal – I was not anything at all. I had no idea that there were such concepts as “conservative” and “liberal”. I did not pay attention to politics at all, and the most political knowledge you would get out of me would be who the US President was, and even for that you had to catch me on the right day.
My first introduction to politics was during the second Israeli intifada in 2002. Unspeakable violence erupted in Israel. Every day dozens of people were killed. Even though I didn’t follow politics, that deeply affected me. I felt sad, frustrated, and powerless. And one night, I happened to stumble on an MSNBC program called “Alan Keyes is making sense.” He was talking passionately about Israel and the violence, and he addressed my feelings very well.  Since that evening, I turned on Alan Keyes every night, and by his commentary he was able to take away some of the frustration and anger that I had. It was like a nightly therapy session.
Feeling intrigued after watching Alan Keyes, I wondered what else MSNBC had in store. I switched through the channels, and low and behold, I found Scarborough Country. Right off, Joe Scarborough wasn’t what he is today at all. He was a solid conservative (as I now understand), making common sense conservative points. I found him interesting and engaging. Opposing liberalism had not entered my mind at that time. I still didn’t know anything about liberalism. It was just the things he said sounded very common sense and worthwhile to me. Imagine that at some point, MSNBC had a conservative host on the air. Crazy times, ha?
Exploring my new political universe, I switched through more channels, and one night I found FOX. O’Reilly Factor was on. From the very first night, I was hooked. I abandoned Scarborough. O’Reilly was not just common sense – he was aggressive, and he was a fighter. He was Scarborough on steroids. He wasn’t just talking – he was taking on what he thought to be wrong and unjust. Ever since the first time, and until untimely end of Bill’s FOX career, I don’t think I ever missed one Factor.
For forming my political views, and my ability to formulate them, I have to give special credit to three people: Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, and Greg Guttfeld.  To Charles - philosophy.  To Bill - realistic and pragmatic approach to politics.  To Greg - realization that a good joke will change more minds than a long lecture.
And for everything else, thanks to my family.


Leave a Reply
  1. This trial is a sham no jury member will vote not guilty because they would be afraid for their safety.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

DAVIDSON: Making Smarter Decisions

Markus Söder: Star Trek fan who could boldly go and lead Germany