Topic: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody - page 3. (Read 4455 times)

We are all qualified to be on that jury. This was a jury of ordinary people. Sure, we're not Chauvin's peers, sure we are not experts in positional asphyxia or toxicology experts, but that doesn't matter, neither was the jury. This was televised so everyone had the opportunity to make their own judgement about the cause of death and the use of force. So based on what I saw, I disagree with the verdict.

No, the verdict is telling you that.

I'm not an expert. It seems to me as an observer that the cause of death is obvious. And the outcome of the trial gives the same result as my uninformed opinion.

Would we be having the same argument if Chauvin was kneeling on a 90-year old grandma? Look, she had 20 pre-existing conditions and would have died anyway within the next 5 minutes or 5 years.

I think it's disingenuous to try to have it both ways, i.e. that the person had severe or even fatal health issues, and that it was ok for the officer to do what he did. If Floyd's condition was so dire they should have taken him to a hospital immediately instead of trying to arrest him for using a fake $20.

Dr. Baker also testified that it appeared to him the knee was on the upper back area between the shoulder blades for most of the time. So which is it? Was it on the neck, or was it on the back?

Secondly, you're telling me Floyd died because of the knee to the back of the neck and that fentanyl, a respiration rate depressant, methamphetamine a vasoconstrictor, coronary artery blockage of 75% and 90%, an enlarged heart, and the fact that chewed up fentanyl/methamphetamine pills were found in the back of the squad car Floyd was placed in had no effect?

the verdict has been passed. he is guilty...
debate over.

stop defending a cop that used excessive force.
the verdict has passed..

Knee on the neck for 9 minutes might have had something to do with it. The exact role Chauvin had is the role of murderer. Hope that clears up any confusion. There's also a video.

This is wrong. He said Floyd died after his "heart gave out* following subdual by law enforcement with contributing factors of heart conditions, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. It's just not true to say he just died from police force and not drugs.

I still don't understand this. We're all suppose to listen to the experts on the cause of death, they each contradict one another.

Dr. Baker (forensic pathologist) - Floyd's heart gave out following law enforcement subdual with contributing factors of heart conditions/drug use. Openly stated no anatomical evidence to support a conclusion of positional asphyxia.

Dr. Thomas (forensic pathologist) - Floyd died of positional asphyxia with contributing factors of heart conditions/drug use.

Dr. Tobin (pulmonologist)  - Floyd *did not die* of underlying factors. They did not play a role in his death. Floyd died of positional asphyxia.

Dr. Rich (cardiologist) - George Floyd had a strong healthy heart and his heart condition did not play a role in his death.


I watched each one of these doctor's testimony and did so closely. They all were contradicting each other. So which expert do I listen to? I pick one?

Manslaughter was the only charge here worth debating. Murder 2 and Murder 3 are so unbelievably wild I don't understand what trial this jury was watching.

Flloyd died "from police force, not drugs or underlying health conditions"
"George Floyd did not die from drug overdose"
-The Medical Examiner


"George Floyd Did Not Die from Drug Overdose"
-Cardiologist (Expert Witness)

Did you see the testimony from Shwanda Hill, the passenger in Floyd's car? She said Floyd was nodding off in the car and that she couldn't wake him up. Certainly sounds like what fentanyl would do. And keep in mind, methamphetamine is also a stimulant, and he was on both. So if he was in the car passing out, does it not sound like the fentanyl had some effect?

The physical evidence available to the medical examiner suggests that Floyd died from an overdose. The conclusion that Floyd died from having a knee on the back of his neck did not involve any information gained from examining Floyd's body -- it was entirely based on the video evidence. This is a concern because, well it is the medical examiner's job to examine the body.

The question is not solely was Chauvin justified in putting his knee on Floyd's neck or shoulder for 9 minutes? The question is, did Chauvin putting his knee on Floyd's neck cause Floyd to die, or significantly contribute to Floyd's death? I think Chauvin was probably not justified in restraining Floyd to the extent that he was restrained for the amount of time he was restrained. However, I do believe that based on the toxicity report, and the fact that Floyd was having difficulty breathing prior to being put on the ground, Floyd likely died from something related to having excessive amounts of fentanyl in his system.

I think the argument for a manslaughter charge might be more reasonable, but I don't think it is clear-cut that Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter. There is an argument that Chauvin should have administered aid to Floyd, and said argument would again be reasonable.

Yeah, he was having a panic attack.  This doesn't make it ok to stay on top of him for 9 minutes while he dies. In fact, it's a reason not to stay on top of him for 9 minutes.


The medical examiner said "George Floyd did not die from drug overdose".

I believe the comment you're referring to was the hypothetical "If we found Flloyds body at home, alone and in the same state, it would be ruled an overdose."

But what happened was a cop sat on top of him for 10 minutes until he was dead and it was all caught on video from many angles.

overdose is:
take the drug. go into a high instantly and slip into a coma.
yep thats how it works

its not
take a drug. and decide to go to a store and buy cigarettes and then walk to a car and sit in drivers seat
listen to some music while chatting to passengers, interact with cops, get out a car on his own feet and walk to the side walk. talked to the officers clearly and plead to not go into the back of the police car.
he was alert and pleading.. meaning it was not a drug induced overdose
https://youtu.be/VDd5GlrgvsE?t=162
as you can see.. clearly standing walking and talking. ..


...some people want to also argue that the claustrophobia thing is not real.
actually being in a front seat of your own car where you know you can open a door and be incontrol and you can see clearly out of the windscreen.. this is not the same as being handcuffed in a backseat where you cant open the back door and the windows are shut and tinted to not see clearly
and where the leg room of the back seat is restricted and a PVC+metal panel dividing the back/front means it can feel more like a prison/cage..(as police backseats are designed to feel like on purpose)

however the claustrophobia did not cause the death. it caused the need to remove him from the car.

being put onto the road should be to have a few seconds for the THREE officers to reposition themselves and at most put leg shackles on. maybe 30 seconds..

a knee in the back should not be something done for 9 minutes while cops just sit and do nothing.
a knee in the neck should not be something done for any minute while cops just sit and do nothing.

but lets say there was some vaguely stupid reason to knee the neck of someone for more then 30 seconds

a knee in the neck should not be continued when the person has gone silent
a knee in the neck should not be continued when someone is known to be unconscious
a knee in the neck should not be continued when an ambulance has been called
a knee in the neck should not be continued when the ambulance arrives
a knee in the neck should not be continued when the paramedic got out and was standing by the person

choking someone out for 9 minutes. is not police policy
choking someone out and continuing to choke out and not do anything to aid recovery. is not police policy

even chauvins boss and colleagues and specialist in police training are all saying what chauvin done is not policy

so accept it chauvin broke the law in a manner that caused someones death
accept the verdict is in.
accept that chauvin is guilty

You are misrepresenting my argument. I am saying that Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before Chauvin was doing anything that would possibly interfere with Floyd's breathing. This means one of two things, 1) some factor other than Chauvin was causing Floyd to be unable to breathe, or 2) Chauvin had a reasonable reason to believe Floyd was not actually unable to breathe when making these cries.


The medical examiner said that if it had not been for the video, he would have believed Floyd died from an overdose. I am not even sure why medical examiners are looking at anything other than the body when making these kinds of determinations.

Of all the defenses I've heard for Chauvin, I think these two are among the most insincere:





We all know that "I can't breath" is what someone says when they're having trouble breathing or short of breath.  Trying to discredit the victim as a liar because he said he couldn't breath but didn't turn blue and pass out and somehow justifying sitting on top of him while he's screaming it and until he's dead is just dumb.

And we all know that the '3x the lethal amount' line does not take into account Flloyds size or tolerance and meanwhile you have multiple experts testifying that he did not die from an overdose.

Not really. Both end in the same result: homicide. Both outcomes were due to Chauvin's actions.

The prosecution had a good line that was quickly objected to, but it pretty much sums up the defense's grand argument at this point:


Does it really matter if Abe Lincoln had an underlying heart condition?

I disagree. If Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe prior to being put on the ground, a reasonable person might not give similar statements much weight when he is put on the ground. Floyd having 3x the lethal amount of drugs in his system is relevant....how would one expect someone to survive after having that level of fentanyl in his system?

I think the comments Waters made will have the verdict overturned. The prosecution will try the case again. Will he be convicted a second time? I don't know.

This probably means the jurors did not need much convincing to reach their verdict. This could have meant the evidence was strong enough that they were willing to convict. Or it could have meant they were afraid of the outcome if they did not return a guilty verdict. It also could have meant one or more of the jurors was implying they would out anyone who did not vote to convict.

Yes, he died, of course. The question is how did he die, and what exact role Chauvin had in Floyd's death. The murder charges don't even make sense within the context of this case. 3rd degree murder was at one point thrown out, so it's not just me saying this - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/derek-chauvin-third-degree-murder.html

I thought the trial should have moved to some place else. It's on to appeals. And 10 hours of deliberations for a case like this? Really?

And your point is what exactly? Why are you attempting to undermine the claims of a medical expert?


It would cause reasonable doubt with you because you're highly biased in favor of the defendant, which is why you're not part of the jury. Nobody in their right mind is going to believe that a drug overdose just happened to coincide with a police officer putting a knee on somebody's neck for 8 minutes. Overdose has been ruled out a million ways from Sunday by people whose opinions actually matter.

You both also missed this tidbit from forensic pathologist Dr. Lindsey Thomas... it's almost like you don't even register the testimony that goes against your pre-conceived notions of what happened:

And dying.  You left out the dying part.

Guilty on all counts? On to appeals.

10 hours of deliberations, think that might have been less than OJ's trial, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman? I guess they really were sure. Boiled down to watching the video and seeing a handcuffed man crying out for his mother and saying he can't breathe it seems. Closing arguments were leaning in that direction, appeal to emotions was the best approach. It worked.