policeman in george floyd case should probably be found innocent

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 259
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I am conceding it is an open and shut case of a deviation from a policy violation that may or may not have led to the death of a person, but that isn't what this police officer is on trial for.
The 2nd part isn't going to be able to be proved, and I think you know this.
So lets get the facts straight
1) the officer was using excessive force on George. both because he wasn't supposed to be kneeling on his neck at all and also because there was absolutely no justification for continuing to do it after George stopped resisting, which Chauvin did for several minutes. 
2) The doctor that received George in hospital testified that he died of asphyxiation. Which given Chauvin was kneeling on his neck would make perfect sense. 
3) The doctor that did the autopsy concluded George's death was homicide. 

So we know Chauvin was not following training. He used excessive force and for far longer than could possibly be considered necessary. And multiple doctors have ruled George's death was a homicide. 

So what exactly are you arguing is Chauvin's defense? The evidence says he is guilty. 
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The doctor that did the autopsy concluded George's death was homicide. 

Which given Chauvin was kneeling on his neck would make perfect sense. 
maybe makes perfect sense to a perfect mouthbreathing CNN worshipper that has not seen one minute of police footage of a suspect having pressure on the BACK of the neck and being able to breathe fine since the trachea is physically located at the front of the neck. Not to mention if you can't breathe, you can't say that you can't breathe.
#33
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The doctor that did the autopsy concluded George's death was homicide. 

Your link doesn't seem to include a cause of Death. Here you go. There is the cause of death determined by the autopsy you are linking to. That autopsy concluded it was homicide.

maybe makes perfect sense to a perfect mouthbreathing CNN worshipper 
I don't watch CNN, let alone worship it. 

that has not seen one minute of police footage of a suspect having pressure on the BACK of the neck and being able to breathe fine since the trachea is physically located at the front of the neck.
so your evidence is that in other cases of excessive force, some people didn't die? But in this case of excessive force, the victim did die. 

Not to mention if you can't breathe, you can't say that you can't breathe.
if your airway is being crushed, you can still get some air, just not enough. You would be able to gasp and say you can't breathe. You would then slowly lose consciousness, then die. And that is exactly what happened to george. He was slowly asphyxiated by Chauvin who continued to do so even after George stopped resisting and after he lost consciousness. 
Topic's author
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
i think the medical examiner said that the cause of death was asphyxiation, but that it could have been caused by either strangulation or by drugs. how much do you think this leaves open for debate how much the death was caused by the policeman and how much by the drugs? and even if the policeman is guilty of something, just how much did he contribute to the death? are you able to answer that without speculation? 
Topic's author
#35
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
i see u just posted the autopsy report. but i was just asking about what i saw on short clips on tv. maybe the defense is trying to poke holes in the autopsy opinion? not sure 
#36
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
i think the medical examiner said that the cause of death was asphyxiation, but that it could have been caused by either strangulation or by drugs.
more than 1 autopsy was done. The Hennepin county medical examiner ruled it a homicide as a result of the police "restraint" and "neck compression"

how much do you think this leaves open for debate how much the death was caused by the policeman and how much by the drugs? 
who said it was drugs? Could you provide me a link to their findings?

and even if the policeman is guilty of something, just how much did he contribute to the death? are you able to answer that without speculation? 
If Chauvin was breaching procedure and engaging is excessive force (which he was), if this contributed to George's death, then he is guilty of murder. Since we know he was breaching procedure and engaging in excessive force (as testified by his superiors), it seems pretty clear cut that he is guilty. 
Topic's author
#37
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
it's pretty damning that the police chief thought it was murder, and the autopsy examiner thought it was homicide. 
Topic's author
#38
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
i'm not sure where the video i saw was, but the doctor responding to the defense was just the ER doctor who declared him dead due to asphyxia. obviously the autopsy examiner is more important. 
Topic's author
#39
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
and even if the policeman is guilty of something, just how much did he contribute to the death? are you able to answer that without speculation? 
If Chauvin was breaching procedure and engaging is excessive force (which he was), if this contributed to George's death, then he is guilty of murder. Since we know he was breaching procedure and engaging in excessive force (as testified by his superiors), it seems pretty clear cut that he is guilty. 

also you didn't answer the question. are you able, without speculation, partition how much the policeman contributed to the death and how much the drugs did? at least, i assume the autopsy examiner might say the drugs contributed even if the offiicial cause of death was homicide. 
Topic's author
#40
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3

this article talks about the doubt that the defense is trying to sow

notably, The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s handwritten notes on the first couple of pages of Exhibit A said, “if [Floyd was] found dead at home alone + no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an [overdose].”
#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
notably, The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s handwritten notes on the first couple of pages of Exhibit A said, “if [Floyd was] found dead at home alone + no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an [overdose].”
Basically, that statement is "if the facts of the case were different, i would draw a different conclusion". But the facts aren't different. He didn't die at home, alone. He dried with a cop crushing him. It's like if someone is found dead in their home with their wrists slashed and the knife sitting next to them. Theres a good chance it was suicide. But if they were found with a man slashing their wrists, those odds go down considerably. 

The autopsy doesn't say he died of drugs or a heart condition. It says he died by homicide. 
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role or authority."

You're such a mouthbreathing CNN watcher. You don't even read your own documents.

A press release is not an autopsy report.
#43
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
"Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role or authority."
that is legal boiler plate. they can't determine if something is legally homicide or not. for example if I shoot someone that is homicide. If I shoot him in self defense, it is still homicide, but is it justifiable homicide. They are saying they can't say if the cop that killed him is guilty of murder. All they can say is that their official finding is that the cop killed him. 

You're such a mouthbreathing CNN watcher. You don't even read your own documents.
I did, you simply didn't understand basic words or their meaning. Also, again, I don't watch CNN. I don't know how much clearer I could be. 

A press release is not an autopsy report.
No, an autopsy report is an autopsy report. And the official cause of death, as per the autopsy, is that it was homicide. If you think otherwise, please show me what they ruled the cause of death to be. But you won't be able to, because the cause of death (from 2 autopsies) was homicide. 
Topic's author
#44
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
i agree that he's guilty at this point, just not murder, manslaughter fits. 

but it's still possible to ask.... so the question is, is it reasonable to doubt the autopsy conclusion? if the situation is such that floyd was a dead man walking, can we be sure without doubt that the policeman was the cause? 

i think the answer is that we should trust the autopsy. but i think it's plausible to question the autopsy. 


#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
i agree that he's guilty at this point, just not murder, manslaughter fits. 
Sorry, I think there is some confusion in terminology. Manslaughter is murder. It is 3rd degree murder. 

if the situation is such that floyd was a dead man walking, can we be sure without doubt that the policeman was the cause? 
short of the cause of death being super obvious (like a bullet hole in the head), it is often hard to be 100% certain in an autopsy. Can be be 100% certain about the cause of death? no. But unfortunately it often isn't possible to get that. So the autopsy is just another piece of evidence. 

i think the answer is that we should trust the autopsy. but i think it's plausible to question the autopsy. 
that's fair. There are lots of cases where different doctors come to different conclusions about cause of death. It often isn't something we can be 100% certain of. 
Topic's author
#46
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
the defense needs to bring in its own doctors if there's any room to doubt the autopsy conclusion.

but i could see it being such, that floyd was dead man walking, on fire so to speak. the policeman was a spark, but if floyd was already on fire, should a spark be the cause of him getting burned to death? 
and if defense realy wants to argue it, they could question whether we ccan be sure there was a spark to begin with from the policeman given the nature of the blaze

what do you think of this analogy? 
#47
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
but i could see it being such, that floyd was dead man walking, on fire so to speak. the policeman was a spark, but if floyd was already on fire, should a spark be the cause of him getting burned to death? 

what do you think of this analogy? 
I can soak myself in gasoline and walk around if I want. If someone walks up to me and throws a lit match on me, they still murdered me. A spark can be murder.

Chauvin has been proven to have been using excessive force on George. If this contributed to his death, then chauvin is guilty. If it was 50% drugs and 50% the stress of being choked, Chauvin is guilty. In order to be clear, they would need to be able to show reasonable doubt that George was going to die no matter what Chauvin did. But given the circumstances of George's death and the medical findings of 2 autopsies as well as the doctor that received george at the hospital, that would be very hard to do in my opinion. All the available evidence says Chauvin is guilty of some degree of murder. Whether through negligence and excessive force, or through depraved indifference to george's life. 

I'm not a lawyer, but i believe the only thing to be determined at this point is:
1) did chauvin's actions contribute to or cause George's death? If so, then Chauvin is guilty of some degree of murder
2) was it just negligence and excessive force? If so, then it is manslaughter. If was depraved indifference to George's safety, then it could be 2nd degree murder. IE if you drive down the sidewalk and kill someone, that isn't manslaughter, it's 2nd degree murder. Given than Chauvin kept crushing him even after he stopped resisting and even after he stopped moving, that could show he didn't care if he killed George. 
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
No life-threatening injuries identified
A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal
structures.

Autopsy clearly shows Chauvin did not "crush" the man's neck. Nowhere on the contusion part of the autopsy is ANY injury described around the neck. Chauvin is going to walk and there will be riots because people can't read and don't know the difference between a medical examiner and a forensic scientist.

#49
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The chief and other officers testified that kneeling on someone's neck when they are handcuffed on the ground  was “in no way, shape or form” part of department policy or training -- but you think there are hundreds and hundreds of hours of body cam footage of them doing precisely that lol. Why are you complaining about CNN and the media not acknowledging this alleged footage when the DEFENSE hasn't either?  Obviously that's an idiotic take they very likely can't prove, which is why they have not and will not be making that argument. 

Their first argument (the tense crowd) is failing miserably so they will be relying  on the argument that Floyd overdosed. Of course an expert will testify to that because they're getting paid to do so. And then other experts will testify he would not have gone into cardiac arrest or whatever (if that's what even happened) had someone not been kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, including for almost 5 minutes after showing no signs of consciousness.

Fortunately an incompetent killer cop is likely to be found guilty for a change. 
#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Autopsy clearly shows Chauvin did not "crush" the man's neck. Nowhere on the contusion part of the autopsy is ANY injury described around the neck.
So, your argument is to cherry pick details out of the report, but to completely ignore what their findings were? You realize the findings of the autopsy you are quoting determined the police killed him, right?

Chauvin is going to walk and there will be riots because people can't read and don't know the difference between a medical examiner and a forensic scientist.
it would appear that your issue is that you can't read. The official findings of 2 different autopsies was that George was killed by homicide. The Minneapolis police have testified that Chauvin was, in no way, following his training by crushing george like that. Chauvin is quite obviously guilty. 
#51
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Crowds are a dangerous, people should have just backed away from the situation, rather than crowding, interfering, lending danger to the environment.

#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
The chief and other officers testified that kneeling on someone's neck when they are handcuffed on the ground  was “in no way, shape or form” part of department policy or training
So what? Chauvin isn't on trial for violating police policy.

How about you point to me in the autopsy report the evidence that Floyd's neck sustained trauma that contributed to his death since HB can't seem to find it either.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The official autopsy report shows no contusions anywhere on the back, side, or front of Floyd's neck. People assumed with no evidence that Chauvin was strangling Floyd. It's actually impossible to choke someone without applying some kind of pressure to the trachea which is at the front of the neck, not the back where there is a thick column of bone. To choke someone from the side of the neck requires some kind of trauma that would have been noted on the autopsy report. Zero evidence was found on the official autopsy report. Was his knee touching his neck? Likely. Did he strangle Floyd with his knee? The autopsy report says not a chance.

Zero.

Evidence.

#54
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
How about you point to me in the autopsy report the evidence that Floyd's neck sustained trauma that contributed to his death since HB can't seem to find it either.
lol, this is just sad. The official finding from that autopsy was that George died from homicide due to "neck compression". I already provided that for you. You simply choose to ignore what the findings were and cherry pick specific chunks of the report that suit what you want to believe. But somehow still cite the autopsy that determined it was homicide. That kind of double think is baffling. 

#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol, this is just sad. The official finding from that autopsy was that George died from homicide due to "neck compression". I already provided that for you. You simply choose to ignore what the findings were and cherry pick specific chunks of the report that suit what you want to believe. But somehow still cite the autopsy that determined it was homicide. That kind of double think is baffling. 
The autopsy report doesn't have the word homicide in the report. It also has no evidence for any injury or marking on the neck. The defense only needs the official autopsy report to prove their case, not a press release.

The autopsy revealed nothing to support strangulation as the cause of death. The exam concluded that the combined effects of being restrained, potential intoxicants in Floyd’s system and his underlying health issues, including heart disease, likely contributed to his death.

Now if you want to challenge the medical examiner's report and the lack of evidence for strangulation, good luck with that.

FINAL DIAGNOSES:
46-year-old man who became unresponsive while being restrained by law
enforcement officers; he received emergency medical care in the field
and subsequently in the Hennepin HealthCare (HHC) Emergency
Department, but could not be resuscitated.
I. Blunt force injuries
  A. Cutaneous blunt force injuries of the forehead, face, and
upper lip
  B. Mucosal injuries of the lips
  C. Cutaneous blunt force injuries of the shoulders, hands,
elbows, and legs
  D. Patterned contusions (in some areas abraded) of the wrists,
consistent with restraints (handcuffs)
II. Natural diseases
  A. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe
  B. Hypertensive heart disease
1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular
dilatation
2. Clinical history of hypertension
  C. Left pelvic tumor (incidental, see microscopic description)

Page 2
III. No life-threatening injuries identified
  A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
  B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal
structures
  C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
  D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other
than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column
injuries, or visceral injuries
  E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and
lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks
negative for occult trauma
IV. Viral testing (Minnesota Department of Health, postmortem nasal
swab collected 5/26/2020): positive for 2019-nCoV RNA by PCR
(see ‘Comments,’ below)
V. Hemoglobin S quantitation (postmortem femoral blood, HHC
Laboratory): 38% (see ‘Comments,’ below)
VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing
performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at
9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)
A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:
  1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
  2. Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
  3. 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
  4. Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
  5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL;
Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
  6. Cotinine positive
  7. Caffeine positive
B. Blood volatiles: negative for ethanol, methanol,
isopropanol, or acetone
C. Urine drug screen: presumptive positive for cannabinoids,
amphetamines, and fentanyl/metabolite
D. Urine drug screen confirmation: morphine (free) 86 ng/mL

Page 3
Comments: The finding of sickled-appearing cells in many of the
autopsy tissue sections prompted the Hemoglobin S quantitation
reported above. This quantitative result is indicative of sickle
cell trait. Red blood cells in individuals with sickle cell trait
are known to sickle as a postmortem artifact. The decedent’s
antemortem peripheral blood smear (made from a complete blood count
collected 5/25/20 at 9:00 p.m.) was reviewed by an expert HHC
hematopathologist at the Medical Examiner’s request. This review
found no evidence of antemortem sickling.
The decedent was known to be positive for 2019-nCoV RNA on 4/3/2020.
Since PCR positivity for 2019-nCoV RNA can persist for weeks after
the onset and resolution of clinical disease, the autopsy result most
likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent PCR positivity from
previous infection.

Strangulation is nowhere in this official autopsy report.
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
No life-threatening injuries identified.

The medical examiner can say an elephant killed Floyd and it would hold the same weight in court as him declaring it was a homicide. Did you even read the disclaimer on the propaganda press release?

Here I will do your work for you as usual.

Manner of death classification is a statutory function of the medical examiner,
as part of death certification for purposes of vital statistics and public health.
Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and
should not be used to usurp the judicial process. Such decisions are outside
the scope of the Medical Examiner’s role or authority.

Under Minnesota state law, the Medical Examiner is a neutral and independent
office and is separate and distinct from any prosecutorial authority or law
enforcement agency.

Done.

#57
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The medical examiner can say an elephant killed Floyd and it would hold the same weight in court as him declaring it was a homicide. Did you even read the disclaimer on the propaganda press release?
you're just repeating what I already told you. the medical examiner can't say it was murder. And he isn't saying that. What he is saying is that Chauvin killed George by crushing him with his knee. Whether Chauvin killing him is murder is up to the court to decide, But Chauvin killed him.  That is what 2 autopsies have said. 

#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
What he is saying is that Chauvin killed George by crushing him with his knee.

Based on what autopsy evidence?
#59
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Based on what autopsy evidence?
the evidence in the 2 separate autopsies? Are you expecting me to provide a detailed medical account based on years of medical experience? Because I don't have that. You know who does have that? the people who did the 2 separate autopsies and concluded that Chauvin crushed George to death.

Why are you citing a medical report that says Chauvin killed him as some sort of evidence that he didn't? It is nonsensical. 
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because I don't have that. 
Probably because it does not exist.