What should the verdict be in the Floyd trial?

[2aguy]

Cha

I only have one question, and it may have already been addressed in the trial: How does the officer's actions compare to current training and rules? Depending on that answer, this might be another situation in which we need to know (and perhaps fix) expectations put on these guys. If the rules under which he operates indicate that what he was doing was acceptable, that needs to be addressed. Nationally.

Nope. Any sensible person would realize stepping on a man's neck for 9 minutes would probably kill them.

The video clearly shows that Chauvin's knee was NOT compressing his airway. The cop behaved stupidly and carelessly but did not murder Floyd. Imagine being a juror who actually follows the bench instructions and finds Chauvin guilty of only Manslaughter. All 14 of those jurors can be doxxed and punished for their actions. THAT is the America the Left want for us all.

Wrong.
The video clearly shows Chauvin is not only compressing the esophagus, but also compressing the carotid artery.
Any pressure on the neck normally is totally and completely illegal because it is will knows to be potentially lethal.
The only time it is legal is if under a lethal attack and you then have justification for lethal force.

And more bullshit. Neck holds are not 'normally' illegal and, the only important fact here, they were not illegal in the area that Chauvin was in. It was not even against department standards to use the restraint Chauvin did.

That does not make him innocent but it certainly hurts the arguments he is not if you are using falsehoods.

The video clearly shows that Chauvin's knee was NOT compressing his airway. The cop behaved stupidly and carelessly but did not murder Floyd. Imagine being a juror who actually follows the bench instructions and finds Chauvin guilty of only Manslaughter. All 14 of those jurors can be doxxed and punished for their actions. THAT is the America the Left want for us all.

Any Juror who finds less than murder is a complete fucking idiot.

The video shows he murdered the guy. This isn't a split second decision, this is NINE MINUTES of compressing the man's airways. He stayed on him for five minutes after he stopped struggling.

Any juroro who convicts is an asshole........the last 8 witnesses of the prosecution helped the defense and created more than enough reasonable doubt about Chauvin and the death of Floyd....

If you followed the trial, you dumb shit....you would know that he did not compress the air way....there was no damage to the neck, shoulders or back at any tissue level....

Floyd died from a combination of...

1) 11 nanograms of fentanyl, mixed with methamphetemine.......the medical examiner and the expert witness both testified under oath that they themselves had signed death certificates indicating over doses at 11ng, then, when asked, also confirmed they had signed death certificates at 3ng....the dose where people actually start to die.

2) he had 3 blocked coronary arteries.......the medical examiner and the expert medical witness stated, under oath, under cross examination, that they had signed death certificates resulting from blocked arteries at the 70-90% blockage.....Floyds 3 arteries were 75-90% blocked.

3) he had an enlarged heart and high blood pressure...

4) the medical examiner and the expert witness testified under oath that they had signed death certificates indicating over dose at 11nanograms.......

He died from an over dose...

Wrong.

1) Drugs had not even yet caused unconsciousness, so could not have killed him for hours yet to come.
And as far as fentanyl and methamphetamine, they counteract each other, nullifying them both, to a degree.

2) Floyd has NO artery that was blocked enough to cause anything at this time. The medical experts clearly said:
{... Baker testified that neither Floyd’s heart problems nor drugs caused his death: "Mr. Floyd’s use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint. His heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint." ...}

3) The experts said the enlarged heart actually made him stronger, not weaker or likely to die. High blood pressure did not kill. Lack of O2 from neck pressure was the consistent cause of death from all the witnesses.

4) Floyd likely would have survived the drug overdose, but it had not happened yet and could not have happened for hours. He had just taken the drugs, and they do not work that fast. A drug overdose takes hours.

Wow. 1 is just bullshit and 4 is conjecture and also bullshit.

1. Unconsciousness may be a result of overdose but does not have to be and is certainly not required for drugs to kill you. at least not up until the point you actually die. Where the hell do you get the idea that you have to be knocked out for hours to OD? Further, your contention that 'fentanyl and methamphetamine, they counteract each other' is absolutely 180 degrees from reality. Indeed, taking an upper and a downer together massively increases the likelihood that you have a heart attack. Even legal products at safe levels can cause heart failure when you use an upper and a downer together, it is why they took fen-fen off the market a few decades ago. Far from counteracting each other, they increase the dangers of taking them.

4. An OD does not take hours. It is not food. You do need to digest it on order for it to get absorbed into your system. The time it takes to die from an OD depends on the size of the dose, the manner that it is taken and the type of drugs taken. The effects, like falling unconscious, also depend on the drugs as well as the dosage. Again, your assertion is pulled from thin air and an assertion that Floyd would have survived is also conjecture. We have no idea to the actual drug levels it would have taken to kill Floyd particularly in this situation when the police were adding stress as well as confinement.

Wrong.
Neck holds are ALWAYS illegal EVERYWHERE (unless you have the right to use lethal force to defend against a potentially lethal attack).

There no where that neck holds are or could be legal for just restrain purposes.
They are always and everywhere to be considered lethal.
Tasers are also considered lethal.
That does not mean they always kill, but they have such a high chance of being lethal, that they can only be used in defense from a potentially lethal attack.

As for an OD on drugs, fentanyl is not toxic in any way at any concentration. An OD on fentanyl is because it suppresses and slows down nerve and muscle reactions. It takes hours for the pills to dissolve in the stomach, slowly pass through the intestinal walls, get into the blood stream, start to accumulate in the muscles and nerves, etc.

And you are totally wrong about the combination of fentanyl and methamphetamines. They totally counteract each other. One suppresses nerves and muscles, which the other stimulated them. While each can alone eventually be fatal, either takes a long time, and together it is impossible for a fatal conclusion.
The combination of things is more fatal when they both act the same way, together, like alcohol and downers both suppressing breathing.

All the witnesses said that Floyd was murdered by neck compression, and that otherwise he would not have died.

You don't know what you are talking about........75-90% blocked arteries to the heat...3 of them....... over dose of fentanyl and meth...... and an enlarged heart on top of that.....all 3 individually could have killed him.

 

[forkup]

It was certainly hyperbolic sarcasm but not a straw man.

Whenever you misrepresent someone's position and try to use it as an argument that is a strawman. That's not me saying it that's the dictionary saying it. Definition and Examples of the Straw Man Fallacy (thoughtco.com)

Since no one anywhere in this thread is confining themselves to strictly discussing matters confined to the court case itself, why would you assume such a thing.

Who said I assumed such a thing? You really should look up what strawman arguments are. I was saying that trying to argue something in an OP discussing what the verdict in the George Floyd case would be that is not really at issue in the actual courtroom is irrelevant to the OP itself and I interjected to bring it back on topic.

No, you gave me a list of some of the things the court case is dealing with that you seem to be interested in but had nothing whatsoever to do with the post I quoted.

It's not a list of some of the issues the courts are dealing with. They ARE the issues they are dealing with. And of course, it has something to do with what you were saying. It is pointing out how those comments are off-topic and I tried to get you back on it. Something you apparently take issue with.

Oh? And what 'kind of debater' would that be? The kind that discusses things that are brought up?

The kind that when confronted by someone that has actually something to say about an OP that is relevant. Feels disturbed and tries to use strawmen instead of engaging the actual relevant topic. The kind that uses strawman and then when confronted by it calls it "hyperbolic sarcasm"

 

[B. Kidd]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

 

[jc456]

what is it when a suspect eats drugs and od's?

While handcuffed? I'd call it magic.

So Floyd’s a magician

 

[jc456]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The verdict should be that George Floyd was a criminal piece of shit who would still be alive if he could have simply been a law abiding citizen in Texas.

Turned back in the cigarettes

 

[FA_Q2]

Since no one anywhere in this thread is confining themselves to strictly discussing matters confined to the court case itself, why would you assume such a thing.

Who said I assumed such a thing? You really should look up what strawman arguments are. I was saying that trying to argue something in an OP discussing what the verdict in the George Floyd case would be that is not really at issue in the actual courtroom is irrelevant to the OP itself and I interjected to bring it back on topic.

Then you would have said something about brining it back to the 'topic.' You didn't.

IOW, this is nothing more than a distraction from a conversation you were not involved in...

I would go back to pointing out that if you did not want to address what I actually quoted and addressed then why bother responding to me?

No, you gave me a list of some of the things the court case is dealing with that you seem to be interested in but had nothing whatsoever to do with the post I quoted.

It's not a list of some of the issues the courts are dealing with. They ARE the issues they are dealing with. And of course, it has something to do with what you were saying. It is pointing out how those comments are off-topic and I tried to get you back on it. Something you apparently take issue with.

You didn't point out they were off topic, you pointed out different questions that we were not addressing at the time.

Oh? And what 'kind of debater' would that be? The kind that discusses things that are brought up?

The kind that when confronted by someone that has actually something to say about an OP that is relevant. Feels disturbed and tries to use strawmen instead of engaging the actual relevant topic. The kind that uses strawman and then when confronted by it calls it "hyperbolic sarcasm"

Uh huh. Back to my original question, if you did not want to address what I actually quoted and addressed then why bother responding to me? Exchanging pointless insults is old.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Wrong.....the cops didn't kill Floyd...he died of a drug overdose.....because of incredibly bad health...

Read what the medical examiner and the prosecution expert witness testified to and then you can retract your post...

The medical examiner specifically called this a homicide, you moron.

 

[forkup]

Since no one anywhere in this thread is confining themselves to strictly discussing matters confined to the court case itself, why would you assume such a thing.

Who said I assumed such a thing? You really should look up what strawman arguments are. I was saying that trying to argue something in an OP discussing what the verdict in the George Floyd case would be that is not really at issue in the actual courtroom is irrelevant to the OP itself and I interjected to bring it back on topic.

Then you would have said something about brining it back to the 'topic.' You didn't.

IOW, this is nothing more than a distraction from a conversation you were not involved in...

I would go back to pointing out that if you did not want to address what I actually quoted and addressed then why bother responding to me?

No, you gave me a list of some of the things the court case is dealing with that you seem to be interested in but had nothing whatsoever to do with the post I quoted.

It's not a list of some of the issues the courts are dealing with. They ARE the issues they are dealing with. And of course, it has something to do with what you were saying. It is pointing out how those comments are off-topic and I tried to get you back on it. Something you apparently take issue with.

You didn't point out they were off topic, you pointed out different questions that we were not addressing at the time.

Oh? And what 'kind of debater' would that be? The kind that discusses things that are brought up?

The kind that when confronted by someone that has actually something to say about an OP that is relevant. Feels disturbed and tries to use strawmen instead of engaging the actual relevant topic. The kind that uses strawman and then when confronted by it calls it "hyperbolic sarcasm"

Uh huh. Back to my original question, if you did not want to address what I actually quoted and addressed then why bother responding to me? Exchanging pointless insults is old.

You didn't point out they were off topic, you pointed out different questions that we were not addressing at the time.

Didn't I?

It has to do with the fact that it makes what you said irrelevant to the case.

 

[B. Kidd]

In a sane world, this should be a MISTRIAL!!!

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

 

[FA_Q2]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

Speaking of things you call straw men....

 

[B. Kidd]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

Speaking of things you call straw men....

That is indeed a strawman. Unlike you, I don't claim it's hyperbolic sarcasm.

 

[B. Kidd]

The Judge's 1st mistake was not changing the venue. In light of him not doing that, his 2nd mistake was not immediately sequestering the jury.

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this? By the way, considering that this is a high-profile, highly loaded case since long before the trial started jury sequestering shouldn't really matter.

 

[B. Kidd]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

 

[FA_Q2]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

Speaking of things you call straw men....

That is indeed a strawman. Unlike you, I don't claim it's hyperbolic sarcasm.

LOL.

At least you are consistent.

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options. So the judge decided, rightfully in my and probably the courts of appeals view (although I won't claim I know for sure) that there is little point to taking the expense, and inconvenience the jury by sequestering any longer than neccesary.

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

Speaking of things you call straw men....

That is indeed a strawman. Unlike you, I don't claim it's hyperbolic sarcasm.

LOL.

At least you are consistent.

I never claimed perfection, and I try to take as well as I give.

 

[B. Kidd]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options.

Sorry. Not the way it works.