Heroic Derek Chauvin Appeals to US Supreme Court

[Lisa558]

That was a terrible incident by the police as well. I would argue that this is a police incompetence issue, not a racial one.

In that particular incident, I put more blame on the idiot shouting commands, not the shooter. Langley was the one who escalated the situation unnecessarily. Shaver was obviously stressed out as it was and Langley was screaming orders that even would have been confusing to someone who was sober. “Put your hands up, leave your hands up, now crawl toward me.” Terrible.

Brailsford, the shooter, reacted to the situation. Yes, he made a mistake but it was also a split-second decision that he was forced to make so I can’t criticize him too much. Langley however…

At the time that happened, I was arguing about it with several conservatives on a different message board. It seems like there are far too many boot-lickers on the right who will defend ANY actions by the police, including those by Chauvin and by Langley.

NEITHER of these cases were racial. Otherwise, Chavin would have been charged with a hate crime, and racism would have been brought up at trial. It wasn’t.

Liberals MADE it as if it had something to do with race, and then the BLM anti-American terrorist group took over from there.

 

[XponentialChaos]

NEITHER of these cases were racial. Otherwise, Chavin would have been charged with a hate crime, and racism would have been brought up at trial. It wasn’t.

Liberals MADE it as if it had something to do with race, and then the BLM anti-American terrorist group took over from there.

I agree it wasn’t a racial issue.

I argued that it’s impossible to prove if Chauvin is racist or not. If the prosecution team brought that up, it would be an incredibly easy softball for the defense to knock out of the park. Bringing this up would only muddy their own case against Chauvin so I’m glad they didn’t go that route in trying to claim this was a hate crime.

What can be shown is that some of these police are incompetent. That includes Chauvin, Langley, and the 3 other idiots who didn’t do a God damn thing as Floyd slowly died.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you would rather hamstring cops from doing their damned jobs and let criminals roam free.

Their job doesn't include being judge and jury.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Their job doesn't include being judge and jury.

It doesn't include getting assaulted, spat upon, berated. It does mean police need to stand their ground against these thugs.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You want to relitigate the case.

No I don’t.

What led to the death of George Floyd is irrelevant as it pertains to the topic of this thread. The topic is his appeal and the reason cited, namely "tainting" by the media.

Fine.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Did one say that there was a physical sign of asphyxiation? Did the other one say that there was no physical sign of asphyxiation? That's how they would differ. They don't differ. They're just different ways of describing the same thing.

One of the documents I linked recounts a meeting between county attorneys and ME Baker and the attorney writes that Baker said: “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation.”

So there you have it. Not only did Baker find no physical evidence of asphyxiation, he went as far as to say there was no evidence that this was the way Floyd died.

Of course it is. You keep lying about this claim that he said there was no asphyxiation. That's not what he fucking said and you damn well know that you're lying about that.

Oh boy, here we go again…

See above comments.

I have no reason to believe there was bias from the medical examiners. That's all you.

I asked you before and you failed to answer: Were you even aware that Floyd complained of trouble breathing before they had him on the ground before I brought it up?

By "reasonable people" I mean people who acknowledge that they aren't medical experts and that they should go with the findings of the medical experts instead of pretending they know more than those people. Not very smart of you.

I never pretended to know anything more than anyone.

You have gotten this wrong from the very beginning by conflating my asking questions (Did they do this, Did they bring this up in the trial, etc.) to my claiming knowledge and expertise that I never claimed or even implied.

Of course it does. They're medical experts. You're not. They think it was a homicide. You don't. Hmmm, what side should reasonable people go with? Very difficult.

You’re conflating again. I never said it wasn’t homicide and I’ve told you about three times already that I’m not challenging their findings.

I cannot challenge their findings unless I know they did not consider Floyd’s pre-existing respiratory distress. But no one knows and no one cares and every time I bring it up in a discussion here, most don’t even ackowledge it.

The non-medical expert thinks he knows more than the medical experts. That's adorable.

One of the damning things for the defense was that Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe when Chauvin had his knee on his neck. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that Floyd was saying this before Chauvin’s knee is not worth taking into consideration?

You have no reason to believe their judgment has been impaired. You're just an idiot.

Never said it was.

Once again, you’re conflating. I said that bias can impair judgment. I did not say Baden’s and Wilson’s judgment was impaired.

You’re an idiot.

Great argument.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, people are biased all the time. It's an inherent trait of human behavior. Therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

Didn’t you already use this twice?

No, you're the idiot if you think it's wise to argue against the findings of two independent medical examiners when you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Never argued against their findings.

I was expanding on that statement, dumbass. There's no way to prove bias and there's no reason to believe that both of these medical examiners were biased.

Conflation. I never said they were.

I will say, however, that it’s entirely possible that they were. This sort of thing has happened before and our prisons hold (and have held) many innocents who were wrongly accused and convicted based on testimony from “experts”. The case of the West Memphis Three is a prime example.

Ok. You can have any stupid doubts and concerns. I'm still going with the medical professionals, not some retarded moron on the internet.

Better?

Whether or not they took into consideration that Floyd complained of trouble breathing before convicting someone of murdering him by asphyxiation is not a “stupid concern”.

Christ, you can’t be that stupid and oblivious.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, I've seen a ton of bias in the last few years. Therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

That’s four times now.

I already gave you my take on this. Not sure why you feel the need to repeat your stupid thoughts at me.

1) Multiple independent medical examiners reduces the possibility of bias.

Ah, so now you acknowledge the possibility of bias. Interesting.

2) The report was excessively wordy and difficult for non-medical people to understand.

And? All they had to do was ask Baker to write a report in layman’s terms. There was no reason to go to the expense of another autopsy.

Besides, I told you before that in one of the documents I linked, the Floyd family and their attorneys were concerned that Baker did not “address the effect of the purposeful use of force on Mr. Floyd’s neck”

Two things here:

1.) They specifically looked for signs of asphyxiation that they felt Baker had overlooked. In and of itself this may not mean much but it does suggest bias could have been a factor.

2.) You keep harping about questioning the experts’ medical expertise (which I never did) and yet, in a sense, that is precisely what the Floyd family and their attorneys did in regards to Baker’s findings.

Any other stupid thoughts you'd like to repeat at me? Should I just go ahead and copy/paste this again for your stupid ass?

I’ll keep repeating things as long as you continue to conflate and misconstrue. Fair enough?

No, here's what you said: "...I'm merely pointing out that he said no asphyxiation..."

For the 500th time, no asphyxiation is not the same as no sign of asphyxiation. Jesus Christ. How are you this dumb?

See above comments about the meeting between county attorneys and Baker.

So we agree that there's no reason to believe they're biased. Awesome. You can go ahead and shut the fuck up about that any day now then.

No, we don’t agree because you’re conflating again. I never said there was a reason to think they were biased. I said there’s a reason to think they could have been biased.

Correct. And you have zero experience writing ME reports. Maybe you should try shutting the fuck up about things you don't know about?

I said it was published. Which means, after having read it, I at least have an idea how they are written. And if you read it, you do too.

Of course. Other medical examiners should be able to understand his work. Idiots on the internet, not so much.

There’s nothing mystical or esoteric about “no signs of asphyxiation”.

I don't know, I'm not the medical expert. Neither are you. That's kind of why I leave it to the experts in that field.

You mean like Crump did? He didn’t leave it to the expert, he went and hired his own.

What makes you think I would disagree with the findings of two independent medical examiners? I keep telling you, I'm not an expert in their line of work, so I'm going to go with their findings regardless of the outcome. That's what reasonable people would do.

As I said, they gave you the ruling you wanted.

Baker also said HOMICIDE. What part of this are you failing to understand?

What part of that did Crump and the Floyd family not understand?

According to Baker's report, the fentanyl didn't kill him. Chauvin killed him. How stupid do you have to be to fail to grasp this?

Right. But at the same time he said Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to have killed him.

You can question their integrity all you want. You're still a fucking moron who has no idea what he's talking about.

A fucking moron who nevertheless notices possible inconsistencies and oversights and asks questions about them.

 

[BULLDOG]

It doesn't include getting assaulted, spat upon, berated. It does mean police need to stand their ground against these thugs.

IT DOES INCLUDE THOSE THINGS. There will always be thugs who will behave like that toward police, just as there always has been. Cops know those things will happen before they fill out their first application. That's not to say they can't respond appropriately when it happens. Note the word appropriately. Cops have to deal with unethical lawless thugs. That doesn't mean cops are allowed to be unethical and lawless thugs.

 

[XponentialChaos]

One of the documents I linked recounts a meeting between county attorneys and ME Baker and the attorney writes that Baker said: “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation.”

So there you have it. Not only did Baker find no physical evidence of asphyxiation, he went as far as to say there was no evidence that this was the way Floyd died.

The people who know what they're talking about disagree with you.

"These reports — and the public confusion around them — also highlight how complex forensic pathology can really be. Take the confusion over asphyxiation. As he was dying, Floyd told the police officers that he couldn’t breathe, eventually stopped speaking and then went limp. So it surprised a lot of people when the autopsy reports came across as saying that they’d found no evidence of asphyxiation.


That is both a misunderstanding of the report and an example of the difficulty in identifying cause of death, experts said. It’s a misunderstanding because an earlier legal document, put out to explain the charges against the officer who kneeled on Floyd, said the county had found no injuries consistent with asphyxia caused by physical trauma. But the actual autopsy report doesn’t mention the word “asphyxia” at all. It does, however, describe “neck compression” as a direct cause of Floyd’s death — meaning the blood flow (and, thus, oxygen) to Floyd’s brain and heart were cut off. It doesn’t take physical trauma to asphyxiate someone."

The Two Autopsies Of George Floyd Aren’t As Different As They Seem

Do the autopsies of George Floyd agree, or not? News reports from last week suggest the report produced by the Hennepin County medical examiner and the one prod…

fivethirtyeight.com

Oh boy, here we go again…

See above comments.

See my above comments from people who actually know what they're talking about.

I asked you before and you failed to answer: Were you even aware that Floyd complained of trouble breathing before they had him on the ground before I brought it up?

Yes. I'm still not arrogant enough to come up with theories regarding Floyd's death that are contrary to what the actual professionals think. You on the other hand...

I never pretended to know anything more than anyone.

Except when you think it's wise to go against the findings of medical experts despite you not having a single fucking idea about what you're talking about.

You have gotten this wrong from the very beginning by conflating my asking questions (Did they do this, Did they bring this up in the trial, etc.) to my claiming knowledge and expertise that I never claimed or even implied.

So do you agree with their findings that Chauvin killed Floyd? Yes or no.

You’re conflating again. I never said it wasn’t homicide and I’ve told you about three times already that I’m not challenging their findings.

So, again, do you agree that it was a homicide?

I cannot challenge their findings unless I know they did not consider Floyd’s pre-existing respiratory distress. But no one knows and no one cares and every time I bring it up in a discussion here, most don’t even ackowledge it.

Sounds like you're looking for a reason to challenge their findings. Again, do you agree that it was a homicide?

One of the damning things for the defense was that Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe when Chauvin had his knee on his neck. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that Floyd was saying this before Chauvin’s knee is not worth taking into consideration?

More medical input from someone with no medical knowledge. Adorable. Baker said he watched the video. I'm still under the impression that he knows more about his line of work than you do.

Never said it was.

Once again, you’re conflating. I said that bias can impair judgment. I did not say Baden’s and Wilson’s judgment was impaired.

You’re an idiot.

Excellent, so we agree that Baden and Wilson didn't have impaired judgment. No reason for you to keep bringing up that stupid nonsense then.

Didn’t you already use this twice?

Apparently I need to use it more for you to figure out how dumb of an argument it is that you're making?

Never argued against their findings.

So you agree it's a homicide. Yes or no.

Conflation. I never said they were.

Excellent. So we agree that the medical examiners weren't biased here.

I will say, however, that it’s entirely possible that they were. This sort of thing has happened before and our prisons hold (and have held) many innocents who were wrongly accused and convicted based on testimony from “experts”. The case of the West Memphis Three is a prime example.

Aaaaaand here we go again with your stupid argument. Almost anything is possible. I don't see any reason to entertain such baseless nonsense, and this possibility certainly wouldn't be a compelling argument in a courtroom either.

Whether or not they took into consideration that Floyd complained of trouble breathing before convicting someone of murdering him by asphyxiation is not a “stupid concern”.
Christ, you can’t be that stupid and oblivious.

It is a stupid concern considering that it's coming from you, an internet dumbass with no medical experience whatsoever, questioning the actual medical professionals who do know what they're doing. You bringing up "doubts and concerns" is about equivalent to a child voicing concerns about funny noises that an airplane makes while flying. You simply have no fucking idea what you're talking about and nobody cares about your "doubts and concerns".

That’s four times now.

Still haven't gotten it through your thick skull, huh? Maybe you should try reading it over a few more times on your own.

Ah, so now you acknowledge the possibility of bias. Interesting.

Do you just not read what you respond to? Or are you just really, really slow? I've already explained this before: "It's kind of hard to argue that both of them were biased, yet here we are lol."

Since you're a fucking idiot, I'll go ahead and elaborate for you in hope that this saves time in the future of having to repeat this yet again for you.

If there's one medical examiner, the defense could argue that he was biased. Is it possible that the medical examiner was biased? Yes. Is it likely? No.

If there's two independent medical examiners who concluded the same thing, the defense could argue that they were both biased. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, and much less likely now. This is simple math.

And? All they had to do was ask Baker to write a report in layman’s terms. There was no reason to go to the expense of another autopsy.
Besides, I told you before that in one of the documents I linked, the Floyd family and their attorneys were concerned that Baker did not “address the effect of the purposeful use of force on Mr. Floyd’s neck”

As far as I'm concerned, Baker did lay it out in layman's terms. Homicide. Yet that didn't stop people from misunderstanding what his report concluded. How many of you people have concluded that Baker's report says that the Fentanyl killed Floyd? That's not what he said at all. Your inability to understand simple things is a perfect example of why a second autopsy was helpful. I don't fault the family at all for catering to your stupidity.

Two things here:

1.) They specifically looked for signs of asphyxiation that they felt Baker had overlooked. In and of itself this may not mean much but it does suggest bias could have been a factor.

Aaaaaand here we go again. I thought we already agreed that we have no reason to believe that the medical examiners were biased. Which is it?

2.) You keep harping about questioning the experts’ medical expertise (which I never did) and yet, in a sense, that is precisely what the Floyd family and their attorneys did in regards to Baker’s findings.

Still supports my 2nd point. I think it was excessively difficult to understand and left some confusion among the public as to what exactly happened.

I’ll keep repeating things as long as you continue to conflate and misconstrue. Fair enough?

Sounds like an excuse for your stupidity and inability to read simple things. I'm definitely going to need to repeat myself for you again.

See above comments about the meeting between county attorneys and Baker.

Which has nothing to do with you getting caught in a lie. "No asphyxiation" is not the same as "no sign of asphyxiation".

No, we don’t agree because you’re conflating again. I never said there was a reason to think they were biased. I said there’s a reason to think they could have been biased.

Aaaaaaand here we go again. Do you or do you not believe they were biased? Jesus fucking Christ.

I said it was published. Which means, after having read it, I at least have an idea how they are written. And if you read it, you do too.

And you think you know enough about it to say how medical examiners should write their reports. LoL, that's adorable.

There’s nothing mystical or esoteric about “no signs of asphyxiation”.

Apparently that's mystical to you considering that I keep needing to explain to you that "no asphyxiation" is not the same as "no physical signs of asphyxiation".

You mean like Crump did? He didn’t leave it to the expert, he went and hired his own.

Who?

As I said, they gave you the ruling you wanted.

Right, you repeated yourself and ignored the fucking question that I asked you. How about try answering it this time? What makes you think I would disagree with the findings of two independent medical examiners? If they said that he died from Fentanyl, then that's what I believe happened. Simple as that. I'm not an expert and I'm not going to pretend to know more about their line of work than they do. That's right up your alley, but not for me. We're not the same.

What part of that did Crump and the Floyd family not understand?

I don't know who Crump is. I assume you have some really lame comparison that you're grasping at straws for.

Right. But at the same time he said Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to have killed him.

And he specifically said that wasn't what he believed to have killed him. He called it a homicide. Do you agree with that finding or not?

A fucking moron who nevertheless notices possible inconsistencies and oversights and asks questions about them.

"Possible inconsistencies" lol. Some idiot on the internet thinks he found possible inconsistencies despite knowing absolutely nothing about forensic pathology. You're adorable.

 

[SavannahMann]

And you would rather hamstring cops from doing their damned jobs and let criminals roam free.

Question. Why is it that our choice is either corrupt and brutal cops, or anarchy? Are you sure that there isn’t a third option? Like. I don’t know. Cops doing the job they were hired to the way they are supposed to?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The people who know what they're talking about disagree with you.

"These reports — and the public confusion around them — also highlight how complex forensic pathology can really be. Take the confusion over asphyxiation. As he was dying, Floyd told the police officers that he couldn’t breathe, eventually stopped speaking and then went limp. So it surprised a lot of people when the autopsy reports came across as saying that they’d found no evidence of asphyxiation.


That is both a misunderstanding of the report and an example of the difficulty in identifying cause of death, experts said. It’s a misunderstanding because an earlier legal document, put out to explain the charges against the officer who kneeled on Floyd, said the county had found no injuries consistent with asphyxia caused by physical trauma. But the actual autopsy report doesn’t mention the word “asphyxia” at all. It does, however, describe “neck compression” as a direct cause of Floyd’s death — meaning the blood flow (and, thus, oxygen) to Floyd’s brain and heart were cut off. It doesn’t take physical trauma to asphyxiate someone."

The Two Autopsies Of George Floyd Aren’t As Different As They Seem

Do the autopsies of George Floyd agree, or not? News reports from last week suggest the report produced by the Hennepin County medical examiner and the one prod…

fivethirtyeight.com

And nowhere in any of this does it mention that Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe before Chauvin’s knee was on his neck.

Yes. I'm still not arrogant enough to come up with theories regarding Floyd's death that are contrary to what the actual professionals think. You on the other hand...

Conflation. I never posited any theories.

Except when you think it's wise to go against the findings of medical experts despite you not having a single fucking idea about what you're talking about.

Conflation. I never went against anything other than to say that if - IF - they did not take into account Floyd’s prior respiratory distress then their findings are inherently flawed.

So do you agree with their findings that Chauvin killed Floyd? Yes or no.

I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I’m asking questions.

Whether I agree or disagree hinges on the answers to my questions. Until then, let’s just say I’m skeptical.

So, again, do you agree that it was a homicide?

See above.

Sounds like you're looking for a reason to challenge their findings. Again, do you agree that it was a homicide?

What did I just say?

More medical input from someone with no medical knowledge. Adorable. Baker said he watched the video. I'm still under the impression that he knows more about his line of work than you do.

Answer the question: Are you suggesting that Floyd’s complaining about difficulty breathing before Chauvin’s knee was on his neck is not worth consideration?

Excellent, so we agree that Baden and Wilson didn't have impaired judgment. No reason for you to keep bringing up that stupid nonsense then.

I didn’t say they didn’t have impaired judgment, I said I didn’t SAY their judgment was impaired.

I didn’t say it because I don’t know. By the same token, I also don’t know that their judgment was not impaired.

This is one of the nuances of language that escapes you and the reason you continue to misconstrue and conflate everything I say.

By saying “I didn’t say their judgment was impaired”, it does not mean I’m making an assertion to the contrary. It means I didn’t say their judgment was impaired. That’s it.

Apparently I need to use it more for you to figure out how dumb of an argument it is that you're making?

My argument sounds dumb to you because you consistently misunderstand what I’m saying. Hence, you devised your own dumb, false analogy that in no way describes my position.

So you agree it's a homicide. Yes or no.

See above.

Excellent. So we agree that the medical examiners weren't biased here.

See above.

Aaaaaand here we go again with your stupid argument. Almost anything is possible. I don't see any reason to entertain such baseless nonsense, and this possibility certainly wouldn't be a compelling argument in a courtroom either.

Irrelevant. Bias is still a possibility.

Bias was evident in most or all of these types of cases ever since the Michael Brown shooting. Every time one of these cases comes up, there is a sector within the public, the media, the legal community, the black community, the white community and among lawmakers that the officer is guilty long before even a hearing takes place. This is due in part to the anti-cop sentiment that’s been smoldering in this country for almost ten years now. You know it. I know it.
In fact, Maxine Waters went so far as to exhort a crowd of her constituents that, if Chauvin was not found guilty of murder, they “…gotta stay on the street, we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational, we’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

She received a lot of flack for that one.

But anyway, sometimes they’re right and the officer is found guilty. But more often they are not.

It is a stupid concern considering that it's coming from you, an internet dumbass with no medical experience whatsoever, questioning the actual medical professionals who do know what they're doing. You bringing up "doubts and concerns" is about equivalent to a child voicing concerns about funny noises that an airplane makes while flying. You simply have no fucking idea what you're talking about and nobody cares about your "doubts and concerns".

Once again for the reading-impaired; this has nothing to do with medical expertise.

Still haven't gotten it through your thick skull, huh? Maybe you should try reading it over a few more times on your own.

Gotten what through my thick skull? It’s a lame analogy that in no way reflects what I’ve been saying.

Do you just not read what you respond to? Or are you just really, really slow? I've already explained this before: "It's kind of hard to argue that both of them were biased, yet here we are lol."

Bullshit. If I had suggested Baker was biased you would have been all over it saying exactly what you’ve been saying: Baker is the medical expert; that I’m just some internet moron; that I don’t know that Baker was biased and would never be able to prove it in court.

You would have regurgitated the exact same argument whether it was two MEs or one.

Since you're a fucking idiot, I'll go ahead and elaborate for you in hope that this saves time in the future of having to repeat this yet again for you.

If there's one medical examiner, the defense could argue that he was biased. Is it possible that the medical examiner was biased? Yes. Is it likely? No.

But still possible.

If there's two independent medical examiners who concluded the same thing, the defense could argue that they were both biased. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, and much less likely now. This is simple math.

That’s not what you said before. You said: “Multiple independent medical examiners reduces the possibility of bias.”

If you meant “reduces the possibility of accusations of bias by the defense…” then that is what you should have said.

The way it was worded could imply that the Floyd family was concerned that Baker was biased.

As far as I'm concerned, Baker did lay it out in layman's terms. Homicide.

That’s not what you’ve been saying.

Yet that didn't stop people from misunderstanding what his report concluded. How many of you people have concluded that Baker's report says that the Fentanyl killed Floyd?

I don’t know, I never said it did. But given that Baker himself said Floyd had a lethal amount in his system, I haven’t ruled it out.

That's not what he said at all. Your inability to understand simple things is a perfect example of why a second autopsy was helpful. I don't fault the family at all for catering to your stupidity.

You’re conflating again or you’re making an assumption. You’re making an assumption about me based on what others have said.

Aaaaaand here we go again. I thought we already agreed that we have no reason to believe that the medical examiners were biased. Which is it?

Who agreed to that? I didn’t. I said I did not say they were biased. This does not mean I say they weren’t.

I also said bias is a possibility.

Language nuances. Learn a little about that.

Still supports my 2nd point. I think it was excessively difficult to understand and left some confusion among the public as to what exactly happened.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. You just said that Baker put it in layman’s terms: homicide.

Sounds like an excuse for your stupidity and inability to read simple things. I'm definitely going to need to repeat myself for you again.

I don’t doubt that you’ll keep repeating yourself because you insist on conflating.

Which has nothing to do with you getting caught in a lie. "No asphyxiation" is not the same as "no sign of asphyxiation".

Wrong. As I showed you already, Baker told county attorneys that he did not think asphyxiation is how Floyd died.

Aaaaaaand here we go again. Do you or do you not believe they were biased? Jesus fucking Christ.

Aaand here we go again. I said I thought there could have been bias.

Again, this does not mean I’m saying there was. Jesus Christ.

And you think you know enough about it to say how medical examiners should write their reports. LoL, that's adorable.

You’re conflating again. “should” is your word, not mine.

I said that after having read Baker’s autopsy report that I at least have an idea how they are written. I never suggested in any way how they should be written.

Who?

The Floyd family attorney for Christ’s sake.

Right, you repeated yourself and ignored the fucking question that I asked you. How about try answering it this time? What makes you think I would disagree with the findings of two independent medical examiners?

“Agree” or “Disagree” are your words, not mine.

I never said what I agree with or don’t agree with and I never suggested what you should agree or disagree with.

I merely asked the question as to whether Floyd’s prior respiratory distress was addressed or taken into account in the autopsies and the trial. If - IF - it was not then I feel their findings are flawed. But I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

If they said that he died from Fentanyl, then that's what I believe happened. Simple as that. I'm not an expert and I'm not going to pretend to know more about their line of work than they do. That's right up your alley, but not for me. We're not the same.

Great. If they said he died of asphyxiation and I knew they considered his prior respiratory distress, I would say fine, apparently he died of asphyxiation. But I don’t know if they did and I’m skeptical that they did.

I don't know who Crump is. I assume you have some really lame comparison that you're grasping at straws for.

As I said, he’s the Floyd family attorney and the one who ordered the independent autopsy on the family’s behalf.

So, again, you ask me what I don’t understand about the word “homicide”. I then have to ask what Crump did not understand about the word “homicide”.

And he specifically said that wasn't what he believed to have killed him. He called it a homicide. Do you agree with that finding or not?

First of all, he also said he didn’t think asphyxiation killed him. Secondly, if I get an answer to my question, it may bring me closer to agreement. Until then, I cannot commit to agree or disagree.

"Possible inconsistencies" lol. Some idiot on the internet thinks he found possible inconsistencies despite knowing absolutely nothing about forensic pathology. You're adorable.

Once again, this has nothing to do with medical expertise. And yes, if they did not take Floyd’s prior respiratory distress into account then I view that as an inconsistency or more accurately, an oversight.

If that makes me arrogant then so be it. But it makes me no more arrogant than Maxine Waters and others like her who convicted Chauvin before the actual verdict.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And nowhere in any of this does it mention that Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe before Chauvin’s knee was on his neck.


Conflation. I never posited any theories.


Conflation. I never went against anything other than to say that if - IF - they did not take into account Floyd’s prior respiratory distress then their findings are inherently flawed.


I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I’m asking questions.

Whether I agree or disagree hinges on the answers to my questions. Until then, let’s just say I’m skeptical.


See above.


What did I just say?


Answer the question: Are you suggesting that Floyd’s complaining about difficulty breathing before Chauvin’s knee was on his neck is not worth consideration?


I didn’t say they didn’t have impaired judgment, I said I didn’t SAY their judgment was impaired.

I didn’t say it because I don’t know. By the same token, I also don’t know that their judgment was not impaired.

This is one of the nuances of language that escapes you and the reason you continue to misconstrue and conflate everything I say.

By saying “I didn’t say their judgment was impaired”, it does not mean I’m making an assertion to the contrary. It means I didn’t say their judgment was impaired. That’s it.


My argument sounds dumb to you because you consistently misunderstand what I’m saying. Hence, you devised your own dumb, false analogy that in no way describes my position.


See above.


See above.


Irrelevant. Bias is still a possibility.

Bias was evident in most or all of these types of cases ever since the Michael Brown shooting. Every time one of these cases comes up, there is a sector within the public, the media, the legal community, the black community, the white community and among lawmakers that the officer is guilty long before even a hearing takes place. This is due in part to the anti-cop sentiment that’s been smoldering in this country for almost ten years now. You know it. I know it.
In fact, Maxine Waters went so far as to exhort a crowd of her constituents that, if Chauvin was not found guilty of murder, they “…gotta stay on the street, we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational, we’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

She received a lot of flack for that one.

But anyway, sometimes they’re right and the officer is found guilty. But more often they are not.


Once again for the reading-impaired; this has nothing to do with medical expertise.


Gotten what through my thick skull? It’s a lame analogy that in no way reflects what I’ve been saying.


Bullshit. If I had suggested Baker was biased you would have been all over it saying exactly what you’ve been saying: Baker is the medical expert; that I’m just some internet moron; that I don’t know that Baker was biased and would never be able to prove it in court.

You would have regurgitated the exact same argument whether it was two MEs or one.

But still possible.


That’s not what you said before. You said: “Multiple independent medical examiners reduces the possibility of bias.”

If you meant “reduces the possibility of accusations of bias by the defense…” then that is what you should have said.

The way it was worded could imply that the Floyd family was concerned that Baker was biased.


That’s not what you’ve been saying.


I don’t know, I never said it did. But given that Baker himself said Floyd had a lethal amount in his system, I haven’t ruled it out.


You’re conflating again or you’re making an assumption. You’re making an assumption about me based on what others have said.


Who agreed to that? I didn’t. I said I did not say they were biased. This does not mean I say they weren’t.

I also said bias is a possibility.

Language nuances. Learn a little about that.


Now you’re contradicting yourself. You just said that Baker put it in layman’s terms: homicide.



I don’t doubt that you’ll keep repeating yourself because you insist on conflating.


Wrong. As I showed you already, Baker told county attorneys that he did not think asphyxiation is how Floyd died.


Aaand here we go again. I said I thought there could have been bias.

Again, this does not mean I’m saying there was. Jesus Christ.


You’re conflating again. “should” is your word, not mine.

I said that after having read Baker’s autopsy report that I at least have an idea how they are written. I never suggested in any way how they should be written.


The Floyd family attorney for Christ’s sake.


“Agree” or “Disagree” are your words, not mine.

I never said what I agree with or don’t agree with and I never suggested what you should agree or disagree with.

I merely asked the question as to whether Floyd’s prior respiratory distress was addressed or taken into account in the autopsies and the trial. If - IF - it was not then I feel their findings are flawed. But I don’t know and neither does anyone else.


Great. If they said he died of asphyxiation and I knew they considered his prior respiratory distress, I would say fine, apparently he died of asphyxiation. But I don’t know if they did and I’m skeptical that they did.


As I said, he’s the Floyd family attorney and the one who ordered the independent autopsy on the family’s behalf.

So, again, you ask me what I don’t understand about the word “homicide”. I then have to ask what Crump did not understand about the word “homicide”.


First of all, he also said he didn’t think asphyxiation killed him. Secondly, if I get an answer to my question, it may bring me closer to agreement. Until then, I cannot commit to agree or disagree.

Once again, this has nothing to do with medical expertise. And yes, if they did not take Floyd’s prior respiratory distress into account then I view that as an inconsistency or more accurately, an oversight.

If that makes me arrogant then so be it. But it makes me no more arrogant than Maxine Waters and others like her who convicted Chauvin before the actual verdict.

After much careful consideration, I’ve decided that I’m still going to go with what the medical examiners concluded. Thank you for your time. It was a really difficult decision for me, but ultimately I think they know more about this than you do.

Have yourself a wonderful day.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

After much careful consideration, I’ve decided that I’m still going to go with what the medical examiners concluded. Thank you for your time. It was a really difficult decision for me, but ultimately I think they know more about this than you do.

Have yourself a wonderful day.

Fine. In the meantime, I will continue to withhold judgment until I have a clearer picture as to whether the MEs took into account Floyd’s prior breathing problem.

This does not, in any way, call their expertise into question, no matter how much you want that to be the case.

If they had taken it into consideration and I still expressed skepticism then you might have had a valid argument that I questioned their expertise. But alas, that is not the case.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Fine. In the meantime, I will continue to withhold judgment until I have a clearer picture as to whether the MEs took into account Floyd’s prior breathing problem.

Go for it. You’re welcome to think whatever the hell you want with your limited understanding of forensic pathology. I’m still going to go with the findings of the medical experts, who actually know what they’re talking about, whether you think that’s valid or not.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Go for it. You’re welcome to think whatever the hell you want with your limited understanding of forensic pathology. I’m still going to go with the findings of the medical experts, who actually know what they’re talking about, whether you think that’s valid or not.

Still going with this argument that I question their expertise, are you?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Still going with this argument that I question their expertise, are you?

Well let's see. They're experts in this field and they were able to conclude that it was a homicide. You're not an expert and you're not able to conclude whether or not it was a homicide. I'm going with their findings on this one. It was a super difficult decision.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well let's see. They're experts in this field and they were able to conclude that it was a homicide. You're not an expert and you're not able to conclude whether or not it was a homicide. I'm going with their findings on this one. It was a super difficult decision.

I’ve explained multiple times that I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

This is what’s known as a neutral position. You do understand the concept, yes?

My position will remain neutral until such time as I learn whether or not they considered Floyd’s prior respiratory distress. If I learn that they did not then you better believe I will openly and wholeheartedly disagree.

If it turns out they did not, tell me, how ethically, morally and critically I could agree with their findings knowing that Floyd’s prior distress could have been a deciding factor?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I’ve explained multiple times that I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

This is what’s known as a neutral position. You do understand the concept, yes?

Isn't that basically what I said? I'll rephrase just for you.

Well let's see. They're experts in this field and they were able to conclude that it was a homicide. You're not an expert and you're not able to conclude whether or not it was a homicide you've taken a neutral position, neither agreeing or disagreeing with their conclusion that it was a homicide. I'm going with their findings on this one. It was a super difficult decision.

There ya go. No more bitching. I'm simply going with their professional opinion over your non-professional opinion.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Isn't that basically what I said? I'll rephrase just for you.

Well let's see. They're experts in this field and they were able to conclude that it was a homicide. You're not an expert and you're not able to conclude whether or not it was a homicide you've taken a neutral position, neither agreeing or disagreeing with their conclusion that it was a homicide. I'm going with their findings on this one. It was a super difficult decision.

There ya go. No more bitching. I'm simply going with their professional opinion over your non-professional opinion.

So you’re saying that if they did not consider Floyd’s prior respiratory distress that I should agree with their findings anyway?

 

[XponentialChaos]

So you’re saying that if they did not consider Floyd’s prior respiratory distress that I should agree with their findings anyway?

I believe I already covered that when I said “You’re welcome to think whatever the hell you want with your limited understanding of forensic pathology.”

Furthermore, “I’m still going to go with the findings of the medical experts, who actually know what they’re talking about, whether you think that’s valid or not.”

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I believe I already covered that when I said “You’re welcome to think whatever the hell you want with your limited understanding of forensic pathology.”

Furthermore, “I’m still going to go with the findings of the medical experts, who actually know what they’re talking about, whether you think that’s valid or not.”

That doesn’t answer the question. Are you saying that if they did not consider Floyd’s prior respiratory distress that I should agree with their findings anyway?

You’ve been dancing around the point of Floyd being in prior respiratory distress throughout the entire discussion with “I’m just gonna go with the experts”. While at the same time ignoring the fact that if the experts ignored or overlooked it, it means they were possibly criminally negligent and helped convict a man of murder by asphyxiation when the victim was already being asphyxiated by his own hand.