I listened to that Court case and I believe it was a setup. That Derek Chauvin lawyer was incompetent. He could easily have proved that there were other probable causes that killed George Floyd. He has several doctors say that the narcotics he had in him were probably unlikely to killer bill him. But, they then said there was no “safe” level which means it could have liked him. There were other examples that the lawyer could have pursued like a blockage of his coronary artery and that’s why he was saying “I can’t breathe” even before he was on the ground. So many opportunities to show his client was not guilty being reasonable doubt but he failed to pursue any of these opportunities that were presented to him during the trial. Why? Was he that incompetent or was there more to it. In my opinion, he should never have been found guilty being reasonably doubt of any charges based on the evidence of it has been presented properly. Not even an assault charge, let alone murder.