Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

[Ghost of a Rider]

Right. And you believe all of that despite the fact that you have NO ******* KNOWLEDGE of pathology whatsoever. How the flying **** is that an intelligent argument?! Holy ******* shit. Gee, I don’t know, who is more likely to be correct: the competent medical expert or some random idiot on the internet who believes the medical expert is wrong? Hmmmmmmmmmmm that’s a tough one. Oh man, what a super compelling counter-argument. Now I don’t know what to believe anymore. On one hand, we have the competent medical expert. On the other hand, you. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So difficult to choose one over the other.

Choose whichever you want. Any argument I had was never going to compel you or anyone here to change your mind or rethink anything anyway because you already decided Chauvin was guilty before the trial.

 

[Curried Goats]

It also says prosecutors were “unhappy” that he hadn’t included neck compression. They criticized him for it.

It says that? Where? Quote it. I've read the article and don't see that written anywhere.

You keep harping about the charging document. I never said anything about that.

Your own link referred to it.

Again, I never said shit about the charging document.

You just linked to an article that referred to it as the source of preliminary findings.

So now you understand that neck compression was added later, yes?

I understand that neck compression was the conclusion. When you say added later I'm unclear on the context. The conclusion is usually the last thing added, no?

Read the autopsy report.

I have. It concluded homicide by neck compression.

And they pressured him to add neck compression.

According to what, other than your imagination?

 

[XponentialChaos]

In the meantime, my argument remains the same.

Right. The argument about you believing the medical examiner is wrong despite having no knowledge of pathology. That stupid ******* argument of yours. And that sounds intelligent to you? Holy shit you’re an idiot.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Choose whichever you want.

Oh I’m trying to. I’m just having such a difficult time figuring out who is more likely to be correct. The competent medical examiner with advanced degrees and tons of experience, who conducted the autopsy. Or you. Hmmmmmm hang on I’m still ponding this one. It’s really difficult.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It says that? Where? Quote it. I've read the article and don't see that written anywhere.

Are you reading the link I’m talking about? I posted two links to two articles and one of those articles clearly states the prosecutors were “unhappy” with Baker’s findings.
The same article talks about the D.C. expert also being unhappy with his findings and exhorting Baker to add neck compression to the report.

Your own link referred to it.

And? I still never said anything about it.

My point in linking that article was to show how people pressured Baker to add neck compression even though he found no forensic or physical evidence of it.

The charging document is irrelevant to that point except that prosecutors wanted to add neck compression to that.

You just linked to an article that referred to it as the source of preliminary findings.

The charging document was not the source of anything except what they intended to charge Chauvin with. The source of the charges was the autopsy report, among other things.

I understand that neck compression was the conclusion.

Yes, after prosecutors expressed their dismay that it was not added or considered.

When you say added later I'm unclear on the context. The conclusion is usually the last thing added, no?

It was added later after pressure from prosecutors. The autopsy report did not include neck compression when Baker first submitted his findings to them.

I have. It concluded homicide by neck compression.

According to what, other than your imagination?

Read the article.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Right. The argument about you believing the medical examiner is wrong despite having no knowledge of pathology. That stupid ******* argument of yours. And that sounds intelligent to you? Holy shit you’re an idiot.

Just can’t let it go, can you?

Knowledge of pathology is irrelevant to my argument. I’m not saying he got it wrong due to incompetence. I think he was pressured to do so, his testimony to the contrary notwithstanding.

The cause of death was not clear cut and yet Floyd was dead nonethless. Ergo, he went with homicide (I think) because there was overwhelming consensus that Chauvin murdered him. Problem is, this was based on the mere image of Chauvin improperly applying restraint.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Oh I’m trying to. I’m just having such a difficult time figuring out who is more likely to be correct.

No you’re not. You’re having a difficult time convincing me I’m wrong and stupid.

The competent medical examiner with advanced degrees and tons of experience, who conducted the autopsy. Or you. Hmmmmmm hang on I’m still ponding this one. It’s really difficult.

Don’t be an idiot. As I said before, you were never gonna change your mind or rethink your position because you had Chauvin guilty before the trial.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Knowledge of pathology is irrelevant to my argument.

It doesn’t ******* matter. He’s a medical expert and you aren’t. You’re arguing that he’s wrong despite KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT PATHOLOGY. Who’s more likely to be correct about the cause of death - you or him? Him. It’s common sense. That’s why your stupid ass keeps running away from answering, because even you realize how bat-shit retarded your argument sounds when you try to claim that you believe the medical expert is wrong.

 

[XponentialChaos]

No you’re not. You’re having a difficult time convincing me I’m wrong and stupid.

I don’t expect to convince an idiot of anything. If you honestly believe that you‘re more likely to be correct about the cause of death despite having no knowledge of pathology…then you’re a ******* idiot. Do you honestly believe that’s an intelligent argument? Holy shit that’s stupid.

 

[Curried Goats]

Are you reading the link I’m talking about? I posted two links to two articles and one of those articles clearly states the prosecutors were “unhappy” with Baker’s findings.
The same article talks about the D.C. expert also being unhappy with his findings and exhorting Baker to add neck compression to the report.

This confusion could be cleared up with you actually producing these quotes.

And? I still never said anything about it.

The article you linked to did. If you're going to be coy, like a *****, and refer me back to some link you made at some point in this thread then all I have to go on is the information in that link.

My point in linking that article was to show how people pressured Baker to add neck compression even though he found no forensic or physical evidence of it.

But you haven't shown that. You've alluded to that pressure existing in some form but you can't produce the actual quote. I read the article. It says the M.E. that Baker consulted was critical but it never says he was critical of Baker and Baker hadn't released an autopsy for anyone to criticize at that point. What was released and what the other M.E. was critical about, I'm guessing because the article wasn't very clear, was the preliminary information being included in the charging document that said there were no signs of trauma from strangulation or asphyxiation.

The charging document is irrelevant to that point except that prosecutors wanted to add neck compression to that.

Where? It's the intial prosecutor who rushed to add those preliminary findings to the charging document that seemed to exonerate Chauvin even as they were charging him.

The charging document was not the source of anything except what they intended to charge Chauvin with. The source of the charges was the autopsy report, among other things.

Unlike you I've quoted the charging document to prove my point. It released preliminary findings before the autopsy was complete and the all the criticism came from before the release of the autopsy.

Yes, after prosecutors expressed their dismay that it was not added or considered.

Where you clown? You keep talking about this dismay prosecutors had but that wasn't expressed in the link I read. With your refusal to clarify or produce these quotes
I have to assume now you're just making this shit up.

It was added later after pressure from prosecutors. The autopsy report did not include neck compression when Baker first submitted his findings to them.

Read the article.

Quote the part of the article you think supports that.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It doesn’t ******* matter. He’s a medical expert and you aren’t.

All things being equal, I would agree. But things were not equal because he was beset on all sides by people pressuring him to add neck compression. As for the homicide ruling, he had no forensic or physiological evidence to support it. At least nothing in the autopsy report.

You’re arguing that he’s wrong despite KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT PATHOLOGY.

Yes, I am.

Who’s more likely to be correct about the cause of death - you or him? Him. It’s common sense. That’s why your stupid ass keeps running away from answering, because even you realize how bat-shit retarded your argument sounds when you try to claim that you believe the medical expert is wrong.

I’m not running away like you did, I flat out told you I wouldn’t answer until you answer mine.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I don’t expect to convince an idiot of anything.

Then what are you doing here?

If you honestly believe that you‘re more likely to be correct about the cause of death despite having no knowledge of pathology…then you’re a ******* idiot. Do you honestly believe that’s an intelligent argument? Holy shit that’s stupid.

As much as you are not compelled by my argument, neither am I compelled by your expletive-filled diatribe.

My position remains the same.

 

[XponentialChaos]

All things being equal, I would agree. But things were not equal because he was beset on all sides by people pressuring him to add neck compression. As for the homicide ruling, he had no forensic or physiological evidence to support it. At least nothing in the autopsy report.

Lmao. So you, an idiot with NO ******* KNOWLEDGE OF PATHOLOGY, think it’s an intelligent argument for you to question his conclusion that it was a homicide. Explain to me why anyone with more than two brain cells would consider your stupid opinion more credible than that of the medical expert.

 

[XponentialChaos]

As much as you are not compelled by my argument, neither am I compelled by your expletive-filled diatribe.

My position remains the same.

Any idiot can stubbornly hold onto the same stupid position. That’s not something you should be proud of. You’re still arguing that your non-expert opinion is more likely than the opinion from the medical examiner. Explain to me how that’s an intelligent argument please. Why are you more likely to be correct than the professional medical expert? You still can’t explain why this opinion of yours isn’t completely retarded, because it is.

 

[Curried Goats]

All things being equal, I would agree. But things were not equal because he was beset on all sides by people pressuring him to add neck compression. As for the homicide ruling, he had no forensic or physiological evidence to support it. At least nothing in the autopsy report.

Where is the evidence of this supposed pressure?

 

[Faun]

Then what are you doing here?

As much as you are not compelled by my argument, neither am I compelled by your expletive-filled diatribe.

My position remains the same.

Oh please. Everyone saw them on top of Floyd until he was dead. And still didn't get up. That's manslaughter. According to his training, he was required to monitor Floyd's health while kneeling on him. When did he do that?

 

[Faun]

Where is the evidence of this supposed pressure?

There is none. Baker says there wasn't any. Ghost of a Rider is just making that up.

 

[Curried Goats]

There is none. Baker says there wasn't any. Ghost of a Rider is just making that up.

Dumbass just doesn't know how to read properly. It's why he's now too embarrassed to present the part of the article he thinks claims pressure from the prosecutor.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

This confusion could be cleared up with you actually producing these quotes.

The confusion could be cleared up with you actually reading the article.

I made the claim, was asked to provide a link and so I did. I have no further obligations in this regard. The rest is up to you.

The article you linked to did.

And?

If you're going to be coy, like a *****, and refer me back to some link you made at some point in this thread then all I have to go on is the information in that link.

So?

But you haven't shown that. You've alluded to that pressure existing in some form but you can't produce the actual quote.

I quoted the relevent line from the article in Post #612.

I read the article. It says the M.E. that Baker consulted

Baker did not consult Michell, Mitchell contacted Baker.

was critical but it never says he was critical of Baker and Baker hadn't released an autopsy for anyone to criticize at that point.

He had submitted his findings to prosecutors before the release.

I don’t know how Mitchell found out about Baker’s initial findings but he was not happy and said he planned to write a critical op-ed in the Wasington Post about it.

What was released and what the other M.E. was critical about, I'm guessing because the article wasn't very clear, was the preliminary information being included in the charging document that said there were no signs of trauma from strangulation or asphyxiation.

The issue for Mitchell and prosecutors was the absence of anything about neck compression.

The official released report included neck compression but the findings about the absence of signs of asphyxiation remained.

Where? It's the intial prosecutor who rushed to add those preliminary findings to the charging document that seemed to exonerate Chauvin even as they were charging him.

What do you mean he “rushed” to add those preliminary findings..?

Unlike you I've quoted the charging document to prove my point.

“Unlike you”? I never said anything about the charging document so I was not obligated to quote it.

The charging document is your baby, not mine.

It released preliminary findings before the autopsy was complete and the all the criticism came from before the release of the autopsy.

Okay. What’s your point?

Where you clown? You keep talking about this dismay prosecutors had but that wasn't expressed in the link I read.

I can’t help that your reading comprehension is lacking.

With your refusal to clarify or produce these quotes

Wrong. Again, I quoted the relevant lines from the article in Post #612.

I have to assume now you're just making this shit up.

Read the article.

Quote the part of the article you think supports that.

Nope. I’ve done my part.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Lmao. So you, an idiot with NO ******* KNOWLEDGE OF PATHOLOGY, think it’s an intelligent argument for you to question his conclusion that it was a homicide.

If he had nothing in the report to actually support this then yes, I question it.

Explain to me why anyone with more than two brain cells would consider your stupid opinion more credible than that of the medical expert.

What would be the point of that? People will consider it or they won’t. Folks like yourself who pronounced Chauvin guilty before the trial were never going to be swayed.

My arguments on this case are entirely rooted in the fact that so much national attention was focused on it and that so many were already biased against Chauvin, including those who should have been unbiased but were not: politicians, MEs, the mayor, other law enforcement officials, etc..