Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

I did. It says nothing about him changing the conclusions of his report due to pressure.

I didn’t say that this is what the article said. The article says that people were displeased that he didn’t add neck compression, harangued him about it and he then added it to the report.

Nor does it say anything about there being a pre autopsy report.

It says he submitted his findings to prosecutors before the official release. They were unhappy that it didn’t mention neck compression. After this and being confronted by the D.C. expert, he added neck compression and then officially released the report.
You're taken one poorly written sentence and running wild with it like a desperate and thirsty Bingo.
What sentence was poorly written?
 
Yes, the opinion of the ME, the DA, and the Jury...

Irrelevant. You said:

“Any REASONABLE person would conclude he died from the knee on the neck”

This is your opinion.
14 witnesses said he did.

Most of whom did not even actually witness the incident. It’s in the public record that some “witnesses” were not there and so perjured themselves during the investigation.
Nope, it was evidence that was reviewed and considered as part of the autopsy, and part of the final finding.

Wrong. Baker did not watch the video until after the autopsy and in any case, found no forensic signs of asphyxiation.

That Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck is not, by definition, forensic evidence. That is circumstantial evidence.

Forensic evidence would by physical evidence of asphyxiation in or on the body which was not found and he said so in his report.
Yup. Seven figures. That's what he had.

Did he say “millions”? One million dollars is seven figures.
If every homey had that kind of defense instead of underpaid public defenders, half the prisons could be emptied.

Most “homies” are not part of a union.

I know you to be an advocate of unions yet you criticize Chauvin for benefitting from one of the very purposes of unions.

You’re full of shit.
Chauvin's problem was that he was as guilty as a cat in a canary cage.
Chauvin’s problem was that he was caught in the crosshairs of a witch hunt that demonized law enforcement.
 
I’m claiming that a competent medical expert is more likely to be correct compared to someone who has no medical experience and believes that the medical expert is wrong.
Who do you think is more likely to be correct? The competent medical expert or the person with no medical experience who believes the medical expert is wrong?
 
I thought I did. I didn’t expect you to be happy with my answer but I gave you my honest attempt at it.
No you didn’t. You accused me of trying to “muddy the conversation”.

I’ll try again:

Why do you think Baker’s expertise is relevant to my argument when I never questioned it and I specifically told you it was not why I question his findings?

I can’t make it any plainer than that.
 
No you didn’t. You accused me of trying to “muddy the conversation”.

I’ll try again:

Why do you think Baker’s expertise is relevant to my argument when I never questioned it and I specifically told you it was not why I question his findings?

I can’t make it any plainer than that.
Because I do think you’re trying to muddy the conversation. And because I do think you’re questioning his competence. You, not being a medical expert, claiming that you believe the medical expert is wrong, is a really dumb argument.
 
Because I do think you’re trying to muddy the conversation. And because I do think you’re questioning his competence. You, not being a medical expert, claiming that you believe the medical expert is wrong, is a really dumb argument.
So in other words, rather than answer the question, just assume I’m lying. Does that about sum it up?
 

Bullshit. You didn’t answer the question. All you did was accuse me of lying.
Who do you think is more likely to be correct? The competent medical expert or the person with no medical experience who believes the medical expert is wrong?
Who do you think is more likely to be correct, the pathology expert or the prosecutors who know nothing about pathology but nevertheless criticized the pathology expert’s findings?
 
Bullshit. You didn’t answer the question. All you did was accuse me of lying.

Who do you think is more likely to be correct, the pathology expert or the prosecutors who know nothing about pathology but nevertheless criticized the pathology expert’s findings?

It doesn't matter. Chauvin improperly kneeled on Floyd's neck. That's negligent. He killed him. That's homicide. He was rightfully convicted.
 
It doesn't matter. Chauvin improperly kneeled on Floyd's neck. That's negligent.

Yes.
He killed him.

Not necessarily.
That's homicide. He was rightfully convicted.

Maybe. But the fact remains that, even if the procedure was improper, it still doesn’t prove this is what killed Floyd.

As I said to JoeB, his kneeling on Floyd’s neck is circumstantial. The question is: Is there any forensic evidence to prove this is what killed him?

I haven’t seen any. What I do know is that everyone had Chauvin convicted even before the trial. This made it damn near impossible for him to get a fair trial and he said so himself.

There’s also the matter of Floyd being doped to the gills and having a severe heart condition.

Baker even said in a confab with the mayor and others that if Floyd - with the same drug level in his system - had been found dead in his home or wherever, drug overdose would have been a foregone conclusion.
 
Bullshit. I made it clear I was not questioning his competence and your response was to accuse me of doing just that.
And I made it clear that I do think you’re questioning his competence. We disagree on that, obviously. You insisted I answer so I did. Doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with you. What’s your point?
 
Last edited:
Yes.


Not necessarily.


Maybe. But the fact remains that, even if the procedure was improper, it still doesn’t prove this is what killed Floyd.

As I said to JoeB, his kneeling on Floyd’s neck is circumstantial. The question is: Is there any forensic evidence to prove this is what killed him?

I haven’t seen any. What I do know is that everyone had Chauvin convicted even before the trial. This made it damn near impossible for him to get a fair trial and he said so himself.

There’s also the matter of Floyd being doped to the gills and having a severe heart condition.

Baker even said in a confab with the mayor and others that if Floyd - with the same drug level in his system - had been found deade in his home or wherever, drug overdose would have been a foregone conclusion.

Well we have a cop wrongly putting ALL his weight on someone's neck. The guy dies. The medical examiner determines it's a homicide from asphyxiation. Pretty clear Chauvin is guilty as charged.
 
Irrelevant. You said:

“Any REASONABLE person would conclude he died from the knee on the neck”

This is your opinion.

No, it's the opinion of reasonable people. The only people who don't see it that way are racists.

Most of whom did not even actually witness the incident. It’s in the public record that some “witnesses” were not there and so perjured themselves during the investigation.
Well, put them on the stand and swear them in. McCullough didn't do that. He did put a mentally ill woman on the stand who claimed that she went down to Furgeson that day to find out why she hated n*****rs so much. (Hey, I think we found a dream date for you.)

Wrong. Baker did not watch the video until after the autopsy and in any case, found no forensic signs of asphyxiation.

That Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck is not, by definition, forensic evidence. That is circumstantial evidence.

Forensic evidence would by physical evidence of asphyxiation in or on the body which was not found and he said so in his report.

Do you mean he went back and took a second look when provided with MORE INFORMATION? Um... that's what you do.

Did he say “millions”? One million dollars is seven figures.
Yes it is. He had millions on resources.
Of course, he also had the problem of being as guilty as a cat in a goldfish bowl.

Most “homies” are not part of a union.

I know you to be an advocate of unions yet you criticize Chauvin for benefitting from one of the very purposes of unions.

Even FDR saw the dangers of unionizing the public sector.

What we have today are unions that advocate the right of teachers to churn out kids dumber than bricks and the right of cops to abuse suspects, then something has gone terribly wrong. One CTU union leader replied when asked about the Children, 'When they start paying dues, I'll worry about them."

Chicago's last mayoral election was the Chicago Teacher Union's Candidate (Brandon Johnson) barely squeaking out a win against the Fascist Order of Police's candidate, (Paul Vallas).

Chauvin’s problem was that he was caught in the crosshairs of a witch hunt that demonized law enforcement.
No, Chauvin's problem was that he was a racist douchenoodle who got away with abusing black people for years, and went too far while people were watching.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top