and making sure everyone else watching knows that he is in control. Quite unprofessional imo, poor choice of words from the Judge there

He's in on it.

Its what happens in a police state run by a undeclared dictatorial government. The police become the judges and so called judges protect the police.

You mean like being a judge?

@@chriscanzanese5063 Its what happens in a police state run by a undeclared dictatorial government. The police become the judges and so called judges protect the police.

I agree with you,!

judge is probably going do be bribed with tax dollars.

Because they don’t know the rules ?

@@kjsytnmbcz003 Lol

why they did not protect the witness? This is ridiculous.

Agreed if the person IS innocent. But Derek Chauvin IS/WAS/NEVER INNOCENT!!!!!

I was with you, but the Judge has a point. There's redirect. A witness isn't allowed to use their own bias to color their statements. It's about objective fact, not how you personally feel about the fact. Witnesses are called for specific reasons so if you're not called for your opinion, your opinion is irrelevant and can only be seen as you trying to influence the jury with your opinion.

That is the lawyer’s jobs, not the witness’s. There’s literally time for both sides to ask her questions and give arguments. It’s not her job to volunteer information for her own rhetoric

then move to north korea if you want those results

You can't invoke the fifth unless you're accused of a crime. 🙄

👍

Wrong

You are sorta wrong as Nick says. Of course testimony may get suppressed by the questioner if it's not responsive to the question, but that's hardly the witness's concern, especially on cross. As far as not volunteering information you're again technically wrong, since a witness on cross is gonna absolutely want to 'volunteer' (using your word) information. Then again I was taken aback by the incivility of the Judge, though I'm from NYS, and the bits I've watched made me realize they do things strange up in Minnesota, like there's no such thing as 'objecting' to your own question, not once, not ever is it done in NYS. I'm pretty confidant stating as a fact you can't object to your own question, nor can you 'strike' information supplied in an answer if the question allows for the witness to give said information. Further, I was kind of shocked the way attorneys were speaking over witnesses, i.e. cutting them off, another no-no in NYS. I'm not referring to a witness who clearly is not responding to the question asked or supplying addt'l info after having answered the question. Things I don't recall happening in the above testimony.

@@steveholt5115 What's wrong? Explain.

@@arlenehilton7584 The witness was projecting and the judge told her not to. That is within his right as a judge.

Yep. Supreme Court judges get appointed for life..... They get to vote on the most important cases in the US. They can serve for several decades with no further vote or say from the people.

The justice system is more about politics than it is about justice.

SCARY!..

Yes! Oh they will all go out for drinks after the case is over. Judges & Lawyers are all shady.

.. they are all in each others back pockets...

Feelings don't dictate logic. It sucks, but your feelings are irrelevant to the court of law. That's why you need to answer honestly. If you don't, you sound like this gal. Actions speak louder than words, and that's the point of a trial.

at the end of the day they don't want you to taint the jury they don't want you to say something that they weren't supposed to know because it's been decided that they're not supposed to know that thing because it would be a confounding factor.

That is exactly what that judge did! The EMT did amazing though!!! I know how it is when others try and make good people look bad like these lawyers are trying to do but they are the ones defending a freakin murder. So unblieveable!!!

I would never be a witness, a juror or give a statement to police for any reason whatsoever. They hate us all not in law enforcement anyway so there's that.

@@ashleyturner7654 It's their job to defend people convicted of murder. Its called a fair trail. If you were convicted of a crime, would you want a solicitor? I think you would.

You’ve had seven months off I think you’re fine. Children talk to you the way they do because you don’t teach them anything but then you complain about how your job so hard while you have three months off every year and then with the Covid you had another seven months off. Don’t know you don’t care

This is about as wild as court gets. This is basically the judge screaming in her face. I know it doesn't look like it, but he's moments from holding her in contempt.

@@alexanderharris1980 Except good teachers lesson plan and work all through out the year even during summer break (which is meant more for the kids than the teachers) and teachers have been adapting to to remote learning as well as transitioning back to in class learning. If you think teachers are so bad though you could always home school your children in the case that you have children.

@@alexanderharris1980 it is NOT the teachers job to TEACH YOUR kids how to behave! That is the PARENTS job. Kids are in school to learn academics.

@@alexanderharris1980 whinge and whine are you. Let me guess - you are bad parents that shift their bad parenting problems on to others. You are aware it’s parents that are also meant to teach and indeed a child that can’t read or spell correctly is right at the parents feet. And no I’m not a teacher.

They aren’t interested in the truth.

That's why there is a thing called direct questioning. The problem was that whomever directly asked you questions didn't ask he right questions and the opposing attorneys are not going to just allow you to blurt out whatever feelings you have.

@@privatecitizen1251 Yeah, but in the adversarial court of law system, the prosecutor will be the one to ask her other questions if the prosecution feels there was other information that that was not being told from her. In other words, it’s the prosecutor who is supposed to give her the opportunity to “finish her answer.”

That’s exactly my point

That’s why there is opposing counsel, to clean that up

Sometimes witnesses give information that wasn't asked for or try to avoid the question by giving an answer that wasn't asked for. Or they start stating opinions instead of giving facts the question asked for.

@@nightfighter7452 I understand he has to maintain order, yet in this case he seems to be showing a display of power that wasn't necessary. To be fair: I am still looking for the rest of the interchange leading to this clip

@@efransophoto i would say it is necessary, she is clearly a biased witness with an agenda.. she is meant to go in there and simply, answer the questions asked... she is not meant to volunteer information not requested, throughout her questioning, she like the martial artist guy were hostile to the defence lawyer... if they had any real credibility, they would just answer the questions yes or no and only explain things when asked to do so

@@bladesamah She’s the expert for emergency care...🙄

She kept answering questions by injecting superfluous information. Answers are to be limited to the scope of the question in court.

Exactly! OR just plead the fifth and stop cooperating with the corruption displayed in the courtroom today.

Those rules are meant to get yes or no answers. On cross examination you are attacking testimony to test truthfulness and accuracy. If the testimony is indeed true and accurate: it will hold up on cross examination as well as redirect.

You may finish the answer that she was wrong and didn't tell the truth

The whole truth is the whole truth of the information requested... How hard is that to understand. If someone asks you what you had for breakfast yesterday, you don't also need to tell what you had for lunch and dinner, it's the truth but it wasn't asked for.

@@harisadu8998 ..it was even less than a minute and it was what she witnessed.. are you afraid to know the truth?!? 😳

Because she was giving her opinion on the fact when all she was supposed to answer what yes or no. Not try to make her argument

@@kstar1489 How is it in any way helpful, when a trained professional like the lawyer is allowed to steer a layperson - with dozens of attempts - into some misleading "gotcha" answer while having absolutely no other interest in the general issue? Context in oral communication matters a lot. Witnesses should therefore be allowed to offer necessary context if they see how a simple "yes or no" answer (why is that nonsense even allowed? Asking a complex 30 word questions that is designed to mislead and then insisting on a yes or no answer - that's just silly) could be misinterpreted or how they might have left out some important detail. The judge should only intervene if the witness is drifting into moral judgment instead of discriptive sentences but everything else should be the risk of asking a witness that is not on your side. Your court system looks designed to be abused by shady lawyers who know how to manipulate witnesses ...

The judge let her finish and the questioning to finish. She actually was out of line legally

Did not fit in withy what the Judge wanted.

@@Xul because that is the lawyers job.

I'm not a fan of our justice system, much less so judges. I'm also someone who held protests for Floyd and other victims. That being said, the defense has a right to have their question and only their question answered. As the judge said, the prosecution can come back and cross examine if they need to.

Yes, also no one asked her to not show emotion wtf

@@infamousspade3845 no you went over the question. How are we to know what to or not to do in court? People just don't walk I'm court knowing how to be a witness or a juror.

@@PSALMSOFSONGS I see what you are saying, yes you are instructed to answer their questions. Regardless it is indisputable that we aren't informed enough on our legal processes. What I'm saying is she wasn't merely being emotional, she posed questions to the defense several times. Not asked for clarity, she directly asked a question, that is not her place, he'll for Floyd's sake that is not her place.

@@kstar1489 Yeah.

As he should be

judge does not decide that, the jury decides that judges decide sentencing

@@emoney7472why

@@djbillybool8173 the judge can declare a mistrial independent of the jury based on a multitudes of factors

Lol by the evidence and the body cam which basically played out like an episode of cops. I think a certain group will once again peacefully protest with molotovs

Get a grip

That's not what that means.

Exactly...

The Judge has an agenda to pursue, and his "woke" puppet masters have told him the verdict they want. He will do everything he can to keep them happy, because it's not the job of the Courts to seek justice--it is their job to do the bidding of their puppet masters...

@@stereodreamer23 You guys are so stupid. It's a jury trial!

Yea I thought that was a very odd remark to say the least 🤨

He wants that thug cop set free

@Billy Flores not really but maybe a republican judge...

Enter law school and find out.

That is cause you already have biased pre notions based on emotional propaganda and not facts. :)

If he does, he better get plastic surgery and run

You do know the judge doesn't have a say in the verdict right?

Most figured it was a foregone conclusion.

Why would it be a bad feeling? He clearly did not commit murder & it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial. It is literally a waste of time trying him.

I hope not.🤦‍♀️ He will have major issues if so

It's a tough dilemma because without compelling witnesses (especially for the defense), justice may not be served. Somebody has to be protected, and in general I think the defendant has more to lose than a witness.

Relax and answer the questions truthfully regardless of your bias. The defense and prosecutor will take turns and will highlight what needs to be seen by the jury. Otherwise you get your testimony impeached and we as a society loose.

People want to stop crime by volunteering.

Low sugar levels

did you watch the whole interview and not just this clip? She had been doing this for most of the questions, and the judge had had enough. He was fair and impartial through the entire trial, I'd challenge you to find somewhere or a point in time that he wasn't.

It's the defense's job to rattle and impeach the prosecution's witnesses.

The judge was doing his duties properly. Just because he has to follow the process doesn't mean he's being over bearing. Also, he was right in talking and explaining to her how legal procedures work

@@atcdude067 I bet you were bummed out by the verdict, huh racist?

that's not how it works. there are jurors in the room. smfh

@@virtualmidwest3394 good. The jurors saw how the system works

You just don't understand how the criminal justice system works then...

You are one of the dumbest things on here. You think the judge decides? Go riot with the other idiots

The judge has some authorities over the case like sentencing delaying trial conversation time with prosecutors and individuals on the stand The jury votes the judge has jury selection influence things like that and Trump still hasn’t been arrested yet and many cops got away with foolishness so whatever the rules are the court systems and judges are trash

Truth yes. But most of what she is saying is opinion and judgement. They are not asking for her opinions.

@Roger Smith that’s you.

@Roger Smith the police officers are not executioners. you or Chauvin don't get to decide who lives and who doesn't.

@@allenblegen4088 opinions and judgements are methods used to create truth.

@@allenblegen4088 because she has relevant experience she is in fact there to give her opinion as well as eye witness testimony. The Judge did correctly state that clarification requests should come from Prosecution rather than her spontaneously doing so however i understand her need to do it and it's a risk i would take as a witness.

Welp, that’s what happens when you’re cross examined.

Exactly..smh

You don't understand... she is supposed to answer a question in simple terms for the jury to interpret it. Not give her answer then her opinion or sarcasm as well. This is for fairness on both sides of the court.

@@alexanderhamilton4034 i have been in court plenty in my life. And been threatened with contempt of court. Don't ask me something if I can't give my answer.

@@marksmith6435 Then you need to learn to shut up and answer the questions asked. If you want to give your opinions, start a blog.

@@marksmith6435 She wasn't answering anything, and her attendance wasn't optional.

Yeah that was weird and he seemed argumentative

Maybe you should become a Judge, change the way thing are done.

Indeed... American "justice" in action...

@@rudybadass5520 Describe how a white judge scolding a white witness for breaking court protocol has anything to do with being a "supremist".

@@rudybadass5520 she wasn't asked her opinion...she was asked a question.

I doubt you understand what constitutes a mistrial. Lol.

I think the judge is doing everything in his power to prevent a mistrial ...

@@LouHillierPsych That's because you're intelligent and obviously understood what took place there.

I think the judge needs to go new judge he wouldn't have talked to me in that tone I would have checked him on point

@@debrahfisher22 And you would have been in jail for contempt, immediately. People that can't control their emotions don't last long in court.

You realise we have 7 billion on this planet and all them will die at some point - many in front of others.

She should've chosen another profession if that's a problem. Btw, when did Derek stop breathing?

Derek is the police officer who made it so George Floyd stopped breathing just so you know. Fortunately for Derek he still has the luxury to keep breathing right now yet he took that option away from someone else

She should try a different profession then. It's literally HER JOB to see other people dying in front of them. Her job isn't to be a full blown Karen, but she does it well

I like how you all forgot George Floyd's name because now recently you've been hearing about Derek Chauvin.

So you would prefer that a witness could keep talking as long as they want? You are asked to tell the truth. It doesnt say tell the truth and then elaborate on your answer. The court decides if further explanation is needed is needed. If courts allowed people to explain every answer to a yes or no question, no trial would ever get done.

That is an excellent point, she swore to tell the whole truth, not part of the truth. I would love for someone to use that line when a judge tries to shut them up before the answer is done.

Yes

She had clearly finished answering the question.... then she decided to say more... you can’t do that as a witness. Actually- this judge is being pretty lenient with all the witnesses answers considering it would be perfectly acceptable for the attorney to object to the witness’ answers stating they can only answer with “ a yes or a no”..... it’s very common for attorneys to ask mostly “ yes or no” questions.

Learn how trials work moron. Trust me, you don't know better than the judge and all the lawyers on this case. The other side didn't even have a problem with this.

Yeah. In the courtroom, judges don’t like to be talked over by anyone, especially witnesses or lawyers. It’s just how it is.

Yes because she was adding details & embellishing her answer which you are not allowed to do during cross examination! Not only is it against the rules (which witnesses are made aware of before the trial begins) but it does the prosecution no favors because it makes her look like a biased witness

@@justtryme2020 “with 3 grown men on top of him, he looked frail” is hardly adding any details. In the video you can see exactly what she’s talking about. It’s not to any bodies suprise 3 men were on top of him, nor is it a new detail that he died with 3 men on top of him.

@@theusa4052 True

If only he had been in prison where he belonged none of this would have happened.

yeah that was weird

i thought she wanted a witness/ documentation of what was going on

She was asking because she wants them on record.

@@sarahadams5512 agreed

@@sarahadams5512 everything in a court is recorded. So if that's her reason it just makes her look dumb.

She was trying to be a smart Alec and the judge was having none of it

@@Kyle_Lurz No she was not, she was trying to give an honest reply, the judge simply didn't want to hear it.

@@nuclearguitar779 yes she was. There was no question posed and she kept talking. Anyone who knows anything knows you can’t do that in course. It was clear from her tone that she wasn’t happy about being questioned with out of context answers.

She should of said, yes daddy

@@calvinsmyth she is a human unlike you

She was not on duty at the time she was just another regular person in the crowd. Police were not going to let some one they dont know anywhere close to the suspect. Plus the officers had already called for medical assistance anyway. Did any of you actually watch it?

​@@calvinsmyth lol

@@calvinsmyth hey, if I’m ever in a crash and a qualified medical professional wants to assist me please let them through. Thanks

@@fender892 Better yet, when you come to the ER, I'll let an EMT call the shots, but just for you.

Not guilty

Lol

She didn't "argue" at all. Just offered extra information that apparently wasn't, in the judges mind, appropriate. IMO, he was harsh given what she's been through. She was clearly nervous / stressed. I would have gritted my teeth and replied, "crystal", when the judge asked if it was clear. Jerk.

Everettel, They only want you to answer a yes or a no. She wasn't supposed to volunteer information, when she said he seemed small ,then added because they were on top of him,the judge didn't like that. You don't give your opinion.

Yep!!!!

He talked to her like he was reprimanding a child. I guess she interrupted a bit, but what an overreaction! As a woman who has gotten negative feedback for speaking her mind, I very much doubt he would have reacted like that if she had been a man.

@@GroovyFeminist you're 100% right

Well said.

I don't want anything to do with the court. They treat you like a prisoner. A big game for lawyers

Thought that was just me.

I think just the simple fact you have to call a judge “your honor” is incredibly stupid. And then the judge yelling at her for “finishing her answer”... “ I will determine when your answer is done” that sounds insane

Because you can't change you story later when you realize it makes your side look bad? Lmao

And call the judge -"SIR", and not behave in a petulant teenage manner, except if you are a petulant teenager.

@Pete Savoy Just what I was thinking... the "are we clear?" made my blood boil.

@Pete Savoy Absolutely. She's a professional...she needs to behave like one. She never said 'your honor' or 'sir' once, just "Ok" and then doesn't clue into the fact, that you don't argue with the court, ie: the presiding judge, but continues on, contradicting the Judge and giving away a contradicting testimony, after she had already finished. It was an innocent mistake, but a naive one, given her status. You don't do that in a court of law, and she got a hard lesson. Judges expect absolute compliance with what they are saying to a witness. That's part of jurisprudence, whether you like it or not. She learned a lesson and won't do it again, which is the whole point... she wasn't hurt or lost her life, she just learned the correct way to address the bench.

@Pete Savoy Yes, for anyone badgering the attorneys and not following direction. Especially those who snipe at the judge as this witness did! An ignorant, self important witness does not control the court and when one tries, the judge has to step in.

@WORMINYA Nah, he's just one of those misguided sjw's😂😂😂😂

They want to hear what they want to hear, it's all convenience.

No, you answer the question. This was a direct clear yes or know. They didn’t ask how she felt now, they asked what she said then. She was giving irrelevant information, not more detail.

@@kstar1489 It´s true that the judge pretty much can decide what the witness is allowed or not allowed to say in court, but we should always remember that the judge can not decide what a witness SHOULD say. Thus: No witness can be forced to simply reply "yes" or "no" to questions, not even when such questions are percieved by the court to be "simple yes-or-no-questions". A clever witness can avoid it: "I can repeat what I said / what I witnessed".

The reason why he said that to her was because she was forcing others to listen to her additional opinion/story that was not asked for. After being stopped, she behaved immaturely as well. Court is not a drama show to fulfill your desires, it's a spoken process, and should be followed. In court, the prosecutor may not WANT anymore to be said on each matter as it may be misleading to the jury. Unwanted inputs can hurt the case and end up unjustly swaying the case in one direction, even backfiring on the witness's party. Whether you like it or not, that's law, and that's what it's been this entire time.

Rite 😱👀🤔

Biased*

ss slightly

He's in on it....

Perfect comment!!

@@bangitsmom6855 not really, have you guys never seen a trial?

You have to tell the truth according to what questions you are being asked and regarding what counsel is requesting of you. I'm not disagreeing with you I think it is ridiculous frankly she wasn't out of line IMO but I'm not a judge. Honestly that is the whole point of being examined and then cross-examined. It's the defense attorney's job to discredit you as a witness. I fundamentally agree with what you're saying but that's kinda the whole point of having a prosecution strategy and a defense strategy.

He didnt ask her what she thought now he asked her what she thought at the time showing the jury she was not seing clearly in the moment and the fact that she thought the guy was so small when he was over 6 feet shows that. By saying she knows that she was wrong and knows that now dilutes the question and nullifies the point defence is trying to make.

@@smittyjohnson5279: The people in these comments are incredibly stupid. They don't even understand simple concepts of a trial when someone explains it to them.

"I was just finish...." "B-but I was just...." "B-b-but...." This is gonna go straight to her blog, with a title like " are we under a tyran patriarchate still in 2021 ?"

You are a moron

He said *when* her answer is finished is determined by him. Not the answer itself.

@@Fhiorre you made no sense

@@Twistytowertowercrane how? The time her answer is finished is determined by him. Not the substance of her answer.

@@Fhiorre english isn’t a first language for you is it?

If that's whom you call a JUDGE and the things he uttered as LEGAL 🤦🤦, then for sure everybody else other than that so called judge is a legal expert advisor. 😂😂

One wouldn't really be able to make sense of the comments without first watching the video.

@@otisdylan9532 boo hoo😭stfuppppp

Yes. I am in the comment section for the comments 🤦‍♂️🤦

@@multigiant007 Well clearly, you don’t understand civil procedure then

@Chin 😮

It started when he started lecturing her about what she could say.

it's a courtroom you dolt, not a place for her to get sassy and backchat.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I didn't hear her arguing with the attorney. He is trying twist her statement to make it seem like she is not a credible witness. She cleared it up by stating, he looked slim because he had 3 grown men on top of him. The judge is trying to help Chauvin is all that is.

@Jewbro Afrodude Don't need to. I been watching the entire trial on tv for the past 4 days. That defense attorney was trying to twist the statement she made around to discredit her. She was just making it clear why she described Floyd as a slim man.

She has a book deal

She needed that. Some folks always think they know best. She nodded her head continually as the judge spoke to her but I bet it went in one ear and out the other!

The message was already conveyed though

That's how it works, both sides are making their case. Hence Defense and Prosecution.. Leave your bias at elsewhere.

Yes. Corporate law in action

That's how it's supposed to work. As a witness you're supposed to answer the question you are asked and that's it. It's up to the lawyers to ask the right questions for their side. The more you speak "out of turn" could lead to you being held in contempt or having your answers struck from the record. The bottom line is that the lawyers need to do their jobs and the judge is trying to ensure the happens while keeping the witness and their testimony

A FAILED NON JUSTICE SYSTEM

So answering completely is baised? This judge is a man not a God. How does he know the contents of anyones mind to determine when they are done. If the rules contradict the oath your sworn to then ....WHAT?

Awful

right! LIKE WooooooooooowwwwW. wwwwooooowwweeee. boi! ...top tier legal minds up in here. It's almost like he is there to moderate and judge, or something. But nah you're right. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW, just wow. HOL UP. JUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT WOW.

Yikeserino - I can't even! Lots to unpack here.

These witnesses need to be careful with their feelings and their testimonies, they just need to stick to the script or they can blow this case towards the defense and that will hurt very very bad.

Im starting to view judges the same way i view world economic forum/central banks- Low skill/high esteem racists from the segregation era whom enjoy wearing blacks robes and spankin each other during pep-talk meets on "what to lie about or ignore".

whole truth? Whole point is you do not lie. You do not add your own "input" that is for the counsel and jurors to do. You answer the question and thats it.

You can't be liable for something you don't say. Also you can't just say what you want in court. People otherwise would just be sharing their biased views and information and justice would rarely be done

@@MuiKaHo “Whole truth” refers to completeness, not veracity. If I am asked a question and promised to provide a complete answer, then I should be permitted to provide that answer. “At the time, yes,” is a more complete truth than “yes.” It does not add any bias or subjective input. In fact “yes” can appear to be deceitful if timing is important.

Exactly

Yes . I agree 💯

But they sure do know how to hide away from the public, so they don't have to get found on the streets.

Believe it or not I’ve dealt with some very humble and good ones. The bad ones stand out obviously. Wish there was a way to fire them.

This is why disbarring them is possible

The judge is a jerk! She was answering. She was not arguing. He obviously didn't want her to elaborate.

Judge seems to be offended, its like he dislikes her answer itself more than her answering

She gave her opinion, you don't give your opinion. Just answer yes or no. If I was the judge, I would have said the same thing

You obviously didn’t watch the full video. Just like you didn’t watch the full video of Floyd’s drug overdose death. Stop depending on small clip of narrative for facts bro. And smartie mouth was avoiding questions deflecting it back to the defense lawyer with a attitude.

@@is0sceles Ikr they think they know more than the judge. Sickening

that is how court works, yes

How much of this trial did you watch? There were objections being raised by both sides quite frequently. And, as, G Im said, “that is how court works, yes.”

I think he did that cause she's a woman.

He did that because she was being argumentative. There was no more to it than that.

@Roger Smith by you being so triggered by such feminist accusation, she/he is probably right. 🙃

The radical left dreams of a society where you don’t dare even disagree with someone for any reason whatsoever if you are a white male. They somehow think it will make society better.

I watched her full testimony. She was pushing it with the attitude and implicit speach, as have other witnesses for the prosecution before her. This is a very emotionally charged case that is being witnessed in real time by millions upon millions of people all over the world. It's imperative that this trial be as orderly and by the book as possible. That doesn't happen when witnesses take it upon themselves to do the jury's job and essentially espouse a guilty verdict from the witness chair.

The whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

Correct. Because it’s the prosecutor’s job to ask her the questions that will promote their side - as does the defense. It’s ironic because the defense representative seemingly had kept his cool even with a relatively hostile witness. She answers his questions as directed, you don’t answer the way you want.

She has an attitude, the prosecution will not like that she has antagonised the judge .

the whole system is corrupt af

No she was arrogant. The State will indeed have a problem with the way she was back talking the judge. She did not make a good witness. A good witness keeps their emotions in check. Other than that, you look like you have a motive. The jury watches everything.

Lmao that's not how that works, you are not allowed to add passed the initial question without one of the attorneys prompting to, reason is you can add opinionated things to an argument without meaning to that could possibly sway the a jury, whether for good or bad, thenjudge is suppose to stop her when an attorney says just the answer this part of the question. It is up to the other attorney whether to cross examine and determine if any further questioning on their part would be good or bad for their case

That’s what I was thinking. 🤔 Too many big egos, then the judge always gets to pull that “I’m the judge Trump card. Lol

@@jeanettethomas3757 trump lives rent free in your head

no ..as he pointed out - it is the job of the prosecution to re-examine and fill in all the bits they consider important and until then missed out.. prosecution will already know this lady's story inside out..

True enough and it kinda make since but how are you to defend your self verbally or explain more clearly your side when they “already know her story” it defeats the purpose of even having a witness when everybody in that court work with each other it’s more of a okay let’s get these over with type of thing to me

The judge was riled up because the witness was making his fellow racist Republican look bad.

@@The1980Philip you are clueless

Exactly, it will cause people to become MIA

Pamela.. That's what the judge wants,so he can call it a mistrial . It will end up.like th O.J. trial.

Hes bought already. most likely with tax money. The cops just dont want to lose any cases at all they will do and pay what it takes.

Judge is showing the whole world he is biased, unprofessional, belligerent and hostile.

Yeah, I'm done commenting after someone just responded F your feelings. Who says that? With the things thats going on in the world today, I think feelings should matter, this is why I don't do Social Media. So I am done. Peace

This is how every trial works.

@@romakrelian yea that’s just trial, lawyers ask tough questions to try and trip u up, just like congressmen, they try to flip anything and everything on you, both sides, prosecutors and defense, just how it is

Thats how it works lol

I took a day off work to go to court because I witnessed an accident. Sat there all day lost my wages for the day and then they plea bargained. I told the da I would never waste my time witnessing anything again.

@@markbaylor3101 I feel for you. Thats why alot of people don't stop at accidents and stay silent if they see something. Too many people lose money . And with this case you have to worry about witnesses or jurors being attacked by both sides when this is done.

No- not at all, she was totally out of line from the gate. This clip is out of context.

He was preventing a mistrial from being invoked.

9

That’s the kind of answer you give when you WANT to get selected as a juror. The lawyers for the defense and prosecution jointly select the jurors from the jury pool. Lawyers typically don’t want people who know the law on the jury. That way, they can be manipulated by emotion or “good sounding” arguments which in reality are poor. Goes for both the defense and prosecution.

@@gaspi101 Exactly

And you are american.

LMAO

@@ElonTrump7 I am curious, what did the Defense expose about her?

@@sarahshah7932 they cast doubt on her testimony, her answers were exaggerated at times, she was hostile towards questioning by the defence... one must wonder how much these witnesses were coached by the prosecution.... either way, she comes in as a firefighter, in uniform etc and cannot even be unbiased in answering questions... does a lot for her credibility. linda, the attorneys can ask whatever they want, like the judge said, the prosecutors can redirect and ask questions if they have issue with any of the questions or answers received by the defence..... if they want an explanation, they will ask her for one... otherwise, it is just yes or no

I gotta agree with you there the martial arts guy was definitely aware that the defense attorney was trying his best to trip him up as a result he was on his p's and q's

That’s how cross examination works lmao

@@sarahshah7932 he doesn't know...

I don't see that her behavior was in any way problematic.

@@iadorenewyork1 Of course you don't, Karen.

@@nitetrane98 sometimes you can't just give a yes or no answer unless you want a certain picture painted so f*** that

@@ShadowPlay1919 Then don't agree to be a witness.

@@ericmanget4280 you don't have a choice

I'm afraid you are right

That's what they want. Then they get free shoes and food. Pathetic

@@Spartan-tm5hx free shoes and food ? You misinformed fool. Do some research

@@michaelsledge3904 I can literally watch a 100 videos showing this. On KZfaq. What do I need to research?

@@michaelsledge3904 how is looting CVS helping the black community combat racial inequality?

She answered then jumped to what the assumed the attorney was going to ask next and panic discredited her own report and the validity of her testimony. Judge could’ve been trying to keep to procedure for the integrity of the court and/or her from committing perjury.

@@rosscoeradio3741 To me it seemed more like she was adding to her answer in an attempt to rebut the framing of the prosecuting attorney's question which was clearly to discredit her testimony. Not her job, I know, but the judge was needlessly vituperative.

No, you only watched 3 minutes of an hour-and-a-half cross examination

You got it right. Sadly. This is not looking good

@Sharon Young what you just stated makes absolutely no sense.

she's subpoenaed, she has to be there by law

@@randomcheese1719 Yep, her name isn’t Hillary Rodham Clinton

@@750nut Hillary testified in person many times. You know Trump never had the guts to though.

@Seymore Buddz she wasn't found guilty, she wasn't tried. Stop lying, Russian bot.

That’s exactly what I was thinking

If you look closely. The cop. Defense attorney. And judge all look racist tbh. You can see it their eyes. Their responses. And mannerisms. They have already made up their mind. And anyone that comes against that they hate it. God will be the final judge.

The judge did the right thing...

That’s because it’s his courtroom and that’s that! Seems like u are familiar with courts... it’s not sad it’s law and order!!! MAGA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

@@johnsiedlitzki8381 You just said MAGA. sadness is now inevitable .

Are you serious? I'm done, I don't ever want to go to Court again, because if you are allowed to mistreat people because you have a title as a Judge, it's just wrong and if you can just speak to people any kind of way, I just don't agree. I can't get myself to accept that type of treatment and I don't believe anyone should have too, I believe in respect and logic and equality. You can get a point across without abuse of power. If someone gets offended and defend oneself then they have to be in Contempt of Court and may have never been in trouble a day in their life. Nobody can tell me that All Judges are professional and polite, because they aren't, they should have someone to answer too when they violate Judicial rules, like any other job has rules and regulations to abide, by, they shouldn't be exempt.

@@sanaedillard6659 Believe it or not she can get in serious trouble with the court as a witness. The judge is doing her a favor by telling her to only answer what is asked.

It’s easy to claim it’s “broken” when you just simply don’t like the outcomes.

After pondering this for a moment it makes perfect sense. Witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence for many different reasons. Therefore when someone is on trial and they have the presumption of innocence, you can't have the witness tainting the jury because the witness starts spouting off their opinion on the person for example. The role of the witness is to answer the questions they are asked... I hate many parts about our justice system, but the issues with our justice system stem from the corruption of our justice system. If it worked the way it was intended to, similar to our government, it's the best possible way it can be operated. The problem is our institutions have been corrupted, and right now the ones who control these systems have gotten the majority of the left to believe they're the good guys and do their bidding for them. Very similar to the right in the 2000's. The joke is on us though because it was the same people all along. Two sides of the same coin.

@@dang5550 this isn’t a right or left thing. I’ve sat in the chair and had the questions shaped to make what I said shaped to their story. Not about the truth, defense or prosecutor.it’s only about spinning the story’s they win.

@Gregory Koven That is how it works. That's why there are people who have been convicted who are innocent.

If you think any attorneys want the truth, wow! The truth isn't someone's opinion. When an attorney asks the witness did you say that George Floyd was thin and frail, the only answer can be Yes or No. There isn't any shaping of the truth here. I watched her entire testimony and her mind was made up before she ever stepped foot in the courtroom and no one or any evidence was going to change that. Anyone who opposed her opinion was just wrong.

@@dang5550 Absolutely! ... And I would add that Plea bargaining & Delaying trials distort justice.

The judge was preventing either side from invoking a mistrial...

Not for 9 minutes in restraints on the ground with three grown men holding you down and a knee on your neck cutting off oxygen to your brain while you go into cardiac arrest.

He's actually given a lot to the prosecution, but overall seems like he really tries to be impartial

Hopefully the Jury can see through this bs.

It sounds like most people won't be happy with a fair trial, they want a public lynching based on their feelings...

@@williamhufnagel8790 It sounds fair to me

I wouldnt be so sure, this judge has already been in trouble involving this case.

Fix is in it’s so obvious

That "additional information" was irrelevant to the question...

Not trying to be rude but you don't know how Court operates. What you said is a political mischaracterization. If this is what you believe and refuse to correct your thinking then you would be living in ignorance.

@@pixel5341 Who are you? A lawyer? A judge?

@ And let the defense misled you, okay Einstein.

I totally agree with you!

And into the hands of public repercussions... This is a brave new world we live in. 😬

@@quanblackman625 He should be removed from this case and sanctioned by The American Bar Association immediately!!

So do cops.

You mean power

True to a point. My grand father was elected county judge. He was a JP but not a atty, JD ⚖. Indiana County PA. He was a stand up guy. I was arrested by Orlando.gov 🚔 in 2012. The case was a scam & the police lied. The judge in my hearing was a nitwit. She even reviewed the data & KNEW the court case was flawed but made crass insults at me anyways. My case was later thrown out when my public defender told the SAO the police lied.

You're right all they are is glorified referees

A guy in a dress with a powertrip. " i don't like that you are still talking, stop talking" to witness of a murder. Let her give any and all info she has. Unless he working with the defense i dont see how it was up to the him to make the witness stop talking. If im a witness at a murder trial i didn't know i would be restricted by the judge on what i could recall and tell the jury. Seems like a bias judge to me.

Man shut up

That's a typical Republican comment

@@mikem2179 Your reply is a typical character attack by leftists. A witness cannot show bias towards another side, argue with a questioner, nor ask questions or question evidence. Do not divulge information beyond what is asked. If I asked you what color was the car? You should only say it was red and nothing more

She was finishing her answer, and the judge admitted he wanted leading questions and half answers

@@mikem2179 The judge had to intervene or the defense could have requested a mistrial and it would've been a waste of everyone's time. The judge was no fan of Chauvin's, which you can tell by sentencing. But it was the judge's job to make sure this woman didn't ruin the whole thing for the prosecution.

Witnesses aren’t lawyers for either side-the lawyers are. The witness is there to confirm facts the lawyers want confirmed, not give their opinion on the facts. The judge was very nice to her, given that she argued back to him and interrupted him to ask if the cameras were on.

Judge is a clown She didn’t argue Egotistical judge Absolute power corrupts absolutely Can’t stand the egos these days She was quite for several seconds when the judge spoke he has a superior view of self judge is such a loser mad at women because he can’t get phone numbers Not a lot of justice a lot of justifying a lot of cops got away with foolery these judges are jokes

It's the judges job to apply the pre-existing rules of the trial and remind both witnesses and lawyers of those rules when needed in the form of the various objections you hear throughout the trial from both sides. She needed to be reminded of the rules. You wouldn't want a pro-chauvin witness being permitted to break the rules correct? Think of it like a pro basketball game where the players are witnesses and the coaches are the lawyers. Would you want to just remove the refs and just hope for the best right? Of course not you need someone to enforce the rules that both teams agreed to before the match starts. Like it or not this is actually one of those rules.

@@Dan-zt7uj No man from Europe should tell anyone in America what to do nor should have any type of authority in America the cop and the judge is from Europe and there is misuse of authority if college didn’t cost money a better person would be the judge the individuals at the government are garbage neglecting society can’t make rules at someone else’s house education doesn’t make one superior it just means they were rich enough to afford it didn’t the Republicans let Trump get away with the Capitol Riot? This judge is pure garbage and the rules of the court the laws all garbage

@@Dan-zt7uj Judge is nobody to me weed was made illegal a three strike rule is there this is not a sport this is people lives people future peoples freedom I don’t can’t and will never respect these disgusting courts

@Ima White yeah it’s on VIDEO do you live in the stone ages

She should be fired from her firefighting job for obstructing the police. She and the crowd didn't help Floyd one bit.

So George was selling coke, meth and heroin in the name of God?

@Ima White she explained she couldn't see him clearly due to three grown men on him, obstructing her view. From her perspective, Floyd was in distress and likely frail. Moreover, had the victim been white, the testimony would have been used to strengthen the plight of the victim. Disgusting!

@@tommymurray7023 ..and that means what? He should've been killed by a person who's supposed to protect the public..all over an *alleged"..counterfeit bill....stop the madness

She answered the question but wanted to offer a clarification.The attorneys were done questioning her and she kept talking. Since she didn't stop talking, the judge had to send the jury to recess, and have a sidebar discussion with the witness, prosecutor, and defense attorney.

The attitude of the witness is what's "concerning" in this. Even after being told off by the judge, she still has a sassy "a'ight" instead of a respectful answer. That is not to say that her testimony is less credible, but she has an attitude that wouldn't fly in our department. If she talks like that to patients or her superiors, she's a HIPPA violation waiting to happen.

@@leopoldfreiherrvonbernewit4747 Because the judge did not give supreme attitude himself? As if

@@673497 I mean.. Yes.. But the judge is the presiding officer of a case. If he says you were out of bounds, you were. Period. You don't argue with the umpire. (If you really, really think he was wrong in a legal sense, you can challenge the ruling later by appealing, but don't tell a judge how to do his job during trial.)

@@leopoldfreiherrvonbernewit4747 Kind of like...oh I don't know... do what the cops tell you to do and not talk back? 🤔

@@chiefnavydoc you clearly have no understating whatsoever of how court works …

I don't suggest going into a judges courtoom and arguing for your version of justice lol

I do not suggest you go into a judges courtoom and tell them what's what .. lol

Witness: “Yes that man murdered my wife” Judge: Sorry Your answer finished and man

@@TheNiteinjail see that is the problem right there.... smfh

because she answered the question and then offered irrelevant subjective information. You don't have the "freedom of speech" to just blather on about anything you want when you're questioned as a witness.

The Judge is right.

The court deserves respect as they are seeking justice in murder... wow 👏

Pull her aside 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 He’s a Judge not her babyfather

@@roncarter3898 my point exactly 💯

Yup.judge humiliated and scolded her

@silverrahul The judge was using the same methods as american cops. Intimidation and treating adults like kids and showing them who is boss. Only the screaming and throwing to the ground was missing. Thats not a way you talk respectfully to peaple. The whole justice system needs to change.