Topic: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody - page 2. (Read 4455 times)

Classy, very classy, franky. No, I am not a skinhead.




I'm glad you're quoting the guy that might face legal consequences for lying to get on a jury and taking his opinion on things.

Did you know that George Floyd's family spoke at this march?

Here's what The Guardian has to say about this march, article written august 28th.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/march-washington-dc-racism-get-your-knee-off-our-necks

They call it a "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" march. You're telling me this march had NOTHING to do with police brutality?

Direct quote from article "Rally highlighted police brutality and voting rights"

You have a juror that attended a march in which the alleged victim's family member spoke at, speaking about police brutality, wearing a "take the knee off our necks" t shirt and a BLM hat. You are lying to yourself if you think this person was neutral, and it sure looks like to me that he lied to get on the jury.

Also, half of Republicans consider the verdict wrong - https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-republicans-think-chauvin-trial-verdict-was-wrong-poll-1586278 while many democrats find the verdict right. So as with most things, it boils down to shitty political opinions being conflated with facts, and I made my position very clear and cited the autopsy report, Dr. Baker's testimony, Dr. Fowler's testimony, and plenty others in my reasoning as to why Chauvin should not have been convicted. I wasn't mislead on anything.

If he is wearing a tee-shirt that says "get your knee off our necks", he is protesting police brutality. The rally itself may or may not have been about police brutality, but the specific reason he was there was because of at least in part, police brutality.

The tee-shirt also shows that he had already made up his mind prior to hearing the evidence. The tee-shirt is saying that the use of force was excessive and lead to Floyd's death. This was a point of contention during the trial.

gyft scraping the bottom of the barrel

sounds like gyft is one of them skinhead whit supremisists that think that police should kill people. especially if black


heres some facts outside of your disliking the jury appeal

out of any 12 people you are going to fin someone that actually gives a crap about minorities
.. also
floyd was unarmed so no matter the method. no use of force that has a known result of death should be used.
yes kneeling on a neck is a method to kill someone

the only defense of using a knee on neck without intent to kill.. is if its used for 5-30 seconds to subdue someone while your colleagues position themselves to restain the suspect properly

but having 3 officers standing around watching. and a cop with a knee on neck for 9 minutes.. is not that

get over yourself. chauvin killed floyd.
accept it and move on

try using your time on the other thousands of officers that do make mistakes. and not this guy that purposefully done something that would kill anyone in under 9 minutes in any common sense reality
that even a 10yo can understand is something you do not even do play fighting

It might be brought up during appeals, who knows. But this alone isn't grounds for appeals because any 3rd rate lawyer will just make the argument that the questionnaire this guy filled out was too vague and that he didn't "technically lie". Now of course, everybody knows for damn sure this guy wasn't impartial. And I'd go as far to say that anyone that believes the conviction was the right verdict would be forced to admit this guy wasn't impartial given this guy's statements on the trial thus far.

The CNN article touches on this I think, but this article goes more in depth.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/551624-chauvin-juror-on-attending-protest-i-just-thought-it-was-a-good

So Brandon Mitchell attends a BLM related protest in t shirt that says "get your knee off our necks" with Dr. MLK. Hmmm, surely impartial, right?

Well, look at the questionaire they gave out to every potential juror - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20508712/jurorquestionnaire.pdf


Look at page 8, question 12 - "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you,
participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Surely that March in D.C. was about police brutality, correct? Does this protest seem like something you ought to put on the questionnaire? Well, Brandon Mitchell would argue no. I wouldn't be so convinced.

But I guess that's just a play on semantics. Is a BLM protest a police brutality protest? Are the two words interchangeable? I think so, yes. But there will be some bonehead that would say no.

This is going to get the case overturned on appeal. A single junior lying about being impartial means the defendant did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed by the US Consitution. In the case of this specific junior, I would not find it unreasonable to say that he intimidated other juniors inro voting for a guilty verdict.

This guy should be locked up for contempt, and purgery.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-trial-juror/index.html

Juror speaks out.

TL;DR - Pro BLM man who said Derek Chauvin's confidence deteriorated.

"To me, (Chauvin) started out really confident," he said. "The first week, for sure -- I felt like he was confident, his lawyers were confident. I could feel the confidence for sure."

"I didn't see any remorse."

I too look at a man's demeanor, and from my ass, determine how confident another person is and that he doesn't feel any remorse.


During his questionnaire to determine any biases "This is the most historic case of my lifetime, and I would love to be a part of it," he wrote. How Eric Nelson didn't strike this guy is beyond me. Anyone that wanted to be on that jury should've been dismissed
 
Last but not least, he said this to CNN:

"We haven't seen an outcome like this on a case. I really think this is a start, and I think it's a good start". "And then all the attention that it is still getting -- just keeping that magnifying glass there has to spark some kind of change."

If you think this person was impartial you are lying to yourself. I don't find it surprising he ran to CNN to cash in his 10 minutes of fame.

The media is LYING to you about George Floyd and Ma'Khia Bryant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3YJ24roIzk

 My happiness is that the bad cop that killed George Floyd has been sentenced to 75yrs imprisonment and this will serve as a lesson and stern warning to others. Sometimes it baffles me how the issue of racism still exists in this our generation till now, I thought it was the thing of old but now it’s on another dimension. And the white folks ain’t helping either. The government should do more.

George Floyd was saying he could not breathe before he was even being put on the ground. He was placed on his side for the first two minutes of the restraint in the recovery position and continued to say he could not breathe. Rewatch the body cam video, while the prone restraint was being used, Floyd was being held with his left side on the ground and his right side raised up in the air. Police officers in Minneapolis are trained that if someone can speak, they can breathe. In accordance to Derek Chauvin's own training and MPD policy, he had no reason to believe that Floyd could not breath.

Second point. Floyd did not die of positional asphyxia according to the medical examiner who conducted Floyd's autopsy report, and he in fact testified under oath that Floyd's airway was not blocked. This idea that Floyd was suffocated is nonsense and was disproved months ago when the autopsy report was published.



What the jury instructions that the judge read out to everyone was -- you need to prove Chauvin had a "substantial causal factor" (this is the exact phrase that is used in the instructions) in Floyd's death. You need to prove this *beyond a reasonable doubt*. You need to separate meth, fentanyl, artery blockage, the actions of officers Lane and Kueng, an enlarged heart, and the fact that Floyd popped fentanyl/meth pills when police arrived on scene and isolate Derek Chauvin as the "substantial causal factor" of death. That's is downright impossible without the cause of death being positional asphyxia. If you disagree, tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, was presented that isolated Chauvin's actions as the substantial causal factor of death. You satisfy this if George Floyd was positionally asphyxiated, why the state had Dr. Tobin as a witness to testify that Floyd died of positional asphyxia. Except his testimony directly contradicts the testimony of Dr. Baker, the only person who conducted Floyd's autopsy. There were some other contradictions that I already mentioned before.

I never said fentanyl or meth didn't play a roll in the death.

I'm saying it doesn't matter if they did.  It wouldn't make Chauvin any less guilty of staying on top of the guy for 9 minutes while he begged for his life and then died.

Except, as any rational person was trying to explain to you since the beginning, none of this "additional information" was relevant in reaching a verdict. It's all stuff that people you trust told you mattered. These people aren't lawyers or trained in any particular skill other than whipping up Qanon followers into emotional frenzies, but you trust them because they reinforce your pre-existing beliefs, which serve to give you a de-facto, un-earned sense of self worth. Kind of like how Yankees fans think they become more special than Mets fans by putting on the black NY cap.

The people you get your information from were always wrong and most likely knew they were wrong. They just told you what you wanted to hear for the sake of maintaining advertising revenue, feeding off a base human weakness that says "sometimes its OK to be evil," and you were quick to parrot it back here as if it were independent thought.

What was appalling from the getgo was the utter confidence you had in thinking you knew more about the details of the trial and the entire legal process than any lawyer or expert that contradicted what you wanted to believe. But I can understand if what really happened was you just subconsciously parroted what you heard and didn't think about it much beyond that.


Of course you would, why slow down your consecutive streak of being wrong about everything? Why bother pausing to perform the slightest bit of introspection about how you let yourself become consistently misguided time after time when you can just keep plowing forward and never look back?

To everyone who believed Floyd died of an "overdose", whether you were trolling us or otherwise:

Irrelevant. If you are kneeling on someone's neck, and they're telling you they can't breathe, then maybe you should just get off their neck? Rather than thinking "well, I'm only kneeling kind of lightly, it's probably not fatal pressure..."

Because, as I have been saying for months now, you cannot determine the pressure Chauvin was putting onto Floyd using a damn video. There is just no way to tell. There is research to suggest that 225 pounds of pressure is needed to effect respiration in the prone restraint position. There is research to suggest that the prone restraint position does not inhibit respiration function. There is research to suggest that in thousands of usages of the prone restraint technique in Canada and other cities and not a single death was ever recorded. Coincidentally, Canada does not have the drug dependency like Americans do.

Your argument would hold up IF Dr. Baker ruled positional asphyxia as the cause of death and he didn't. So that means that fentanyl and methamphetamine clearly did play a role in Floyd's death and the whole point of contention is whether Chauvin's knee had "substantial causal factor" (this is the phrase used in the jury instructions for 2nd degree manslaughter and I think the murder charges as well) in Floyd's death

I've asked about a dozen different ways, how can anyone be sure of the pressure Chauvin exerted onto Floyd throughout the entirety of the restraint when there wasn't any bruising, any skin damage, no contusions nothing. I am asking because maybe I'm just wrong and missing something here.

Why does it matter if he was high or overdosing when we have a video of the cop kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes until he was dead?

Being high or overdosing does not make someone unmurderable.

This goes both ways. Floyd gave his name but it appeared he was a bit incoherent and erratic. But how come he was nodding off in the car? The passenger in the car testified this, that he kept falling asleep and he couldn't be woken up. How come he was alert while he was in the store, then suddenly just passes out and is unable to be awakened?

And in regards to the fentanyl levels, I'll believe Dr. Baker when he says 11 ng/mL of fentanyl is an unsafe level and put fentanyl intoxication as the contributing factor. He testified that he's certified fentanyl levels of 3 ng/mL as OD's, so not a harmless amount of fentanyl.

oh so its not longer a story:

so no longer about pill packed in police car.. but now pills before the arrest...
..
hmm so how come he was still alert and able to talk and spell his name and give date of birth and answer questions..

do you still not know how overdoses work

its funny how the video has been public for months.. the jury has already passed its verdict.. but you as a sofa jurer have a different story to tell that does not follow ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE

by the way the medication packaging found in floyds sisters car was not fentanyl. and the amount of that other medication in his blood was not overdose amount. it was not even therapeutic/recreational amount

so heres some actual facts.. not stories
fentanyl levels in floyd were similar to those found in DUI stats. but not enough as postmortem stats
0=clean    9-12=DUI(alive)         18+=overdose(dead)
                  ^ floyd had 11
also those that overdose and die. dont have norfentanyl in their system as they die before fentanyl has chance to break down
floyd had norfentanyl in his system meaning he took fentanyl along time before the police approach. and had enough time for the fentanyl to break down(recover from peak of high)
so again no overdose risk

I don't think it's that confusing at all.  He didn't overdose.  Chauvin killed him.

The whole "he did drugs" argument really is just grasping at straws.  It doesn't matter.

Not in the slightest. I wasn't at the trial, I'm not a juror; I accordingly and appropriately hold no convictions on the outcome of this case.

If anything I think it has been blatantly apparent to millions since Day One that, at the very least, Chauvin was directly responsible for Floyd's death through his actions. I'm sure it was unintentional, but there's no sane reason to keep your knee on somebody's neck or even upper extremities for three and a half minutes after they took their last breath.


Actions can be legal in one context and illegal in another. As a police officer Chauvin has a duty to protect human life, not expedite its demise. Just because Chauvin is trained to do something (though that's certainly up for debate), it doesn't get him off the hook from his other responsibilities, including protecting the safety of the public.


This is just weird. You're obviously the one that has a problem with the laws. I can't imagine being so hooked into an ideology that I needed to constantly reference my ideological opponents.

No, I am suggesting that Floyd took pills and swallowed them to hide them once the police approached his car.

How else can you possibly explain partially chewed up pills being found in the police car where Floyd struggled with police WITH Floyd's DNA on them? He did the same exact thing during his 2019 arrest which was shown in court, not the full bodycam video but partially. Police yelled at Floyd saying "spit it out". He has a history of doing this.

Am I to believe that had nothing to do with his death?

maybe if you as a sofa jurer watched the video you could see for yourself. thats why not only the 'expert' words but the video itself are used

also he was handcuffed. so if you want to suggest he reached in his pocket upwrapped some packaging and put a pill in his mouth.. seems you dont understand handcuff logic much
also in full view of several police officers.. seems you dont understand visual logic

so.. lets see if you can watch the video. and actually see the events. and not make up 'maybe' stories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKjaCvXdf4

as you can see in the first 5 minutes he was conscious. talking. and alert enough to even spell his name and give his date of birth.
yes he seemed upset that he was being arrested for what he deemed as a victimless crime. but then who would be happy.
none of this displays any sign of someone that has overdosed.

also to your suggestion that he took something out and left it in the back of the police car.. well the cops frisked him and emptied his pockets before he got into the car

so. lets get things straight. look at the video linked above and actually tell me the specific times where your assertions occured

oh and one more thing. starting at 11:30. you can see chauvins LEFT knee hard on his neck. and right knee hanging in the air in his back area
i know you only want to talk about the right knee but be aware of the left knee