George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Seattle, Mar 30, 2021.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    He was in police custody. They are responsible for his wellbeing from that point onwards.

    He died while in their custody. They did not provide any first aid and instead, kept him in a prone position that led to his death (according to the doctors who performed the autopsy and examined his body) for over 2 minutes after he stopped breathing and his heart stopped.

    Did you examine his body? Because you seem to be making comments in regards to his health and cause of death that is completely contradictory to the doctors who treated him when he got to the hospital and medical examiners and who performed the autopsy and examined his body.

    Other opinions were sought. They came to the conclusion that the manner in which he was pinned down resulted in his not being able to breathe, leading to death and that the drugs in his system were not the cause of death or reduced breathing that led to his death.

    If you have evidence from examining his body which contradicts that, then perhaps you should contact the authorities.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Yep, it pretty much is.

    Once you remove someone's ability to protect themselves, or seek care by themselves, then you are responsible for the care and protection of that person. If they die, at BEST you are guilty of negligence. And if you did something to cause or hasten that death, then you are at BEST guilty of criminal negligence.

    Let's say I see you on the street and don't like the look of you. So I tackle you and decide to hang on to you until the police get there, because surely you committed a crime. You say "I am having an asthma attack! My inhaler is in my pocket; I have to get it!" I decide you are lying, because you look like a liar, and you're still breathing. So I continue to hold on, pinning your arms to your sides. Then you stop breathing. I figure you are faking still. When the police get there you are dead.

    Do I have any responsibility for your death?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    Death in custody isn’t automatically homicide. The victim of the heart attack is dead, but the death is not a homicide.

    It was concluded by Dr. Martin Tobin that the restraint position is a factor but only where other factors contribute to the overall situation.

    Do you know why? It’s because there’s a large body of scientific evidence, which suggest that factors other than body positioning appear to be more important determinants, e.g., illicit drugs, physiologic stress, hyperactivity, hyperthermia, catechol hyperstimulation and trauma from struggle.

    There is not even a consensus among medical experts as to whether or not being subdued under a great deal of weight leads to death.

    In other words, you can pull up a study and I can locate one to counter it.

    >The effect of the prone maximal restraint position with and without weight force on cardiac output and other hemodynamic measures.

    The onlookers and those that viewed the videos, assumed it was Chauvin’s right knee to the neck that killed him, but that wasn’t the main issue in Tobin’s testimony, was it? It was the pressure on his back and the way that the handcuffs were being manipulated. Officer Kueng was the one applying the pressure to his back and you can see from his body cam that the pressure he applied with one hand isn’t that extreme. Tobin had to include Chauvin’s right knee being jammed in against the left chest.

    >Kueng’s Body Cam Video

    Fentanyl reduces respiratory rate but methamphetamine counters and increases it.

    Tobin denies that his heart condition contributed. He states that there’s two other things that are very important to the respiratory rate, because you saw it with your own eyes, exactly, his respiratory rate. And the first thing is that if you have somebody who has underlying heart disease and the heart disease is so severe that it’s been said that it’s causing shortness of breath, that it’s causing you difficulty with breathing, if somebody has heart disease that’s causing shortness of breath, virtually all of those patients are going to have very high respiratory rates. They’re going to have respiratory rates of 35, 30, over 30, even over 40 when you have heart disease that can give you a shortness of breath. Instead of that, we find that his respiratory rate is normal at 22.

    He said that a healthy person, subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to, would have died, but there are plenty of studies that contradict that very statement.

    Scientists aim for their studies to be replicable. It’s was painful but I still could breathe.[/QUOTE]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Please produce the study performed on Floyd's body that shows that his death was not caused by Chauvin's actions, but rather some condition unrelated to Chauvin's actions.
     
  8. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    From the report:

    "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION"

    Thank you for posting further proof that Floyd was killed by police restraining him.

    Now, do you have a study, performed on Floyd's body, that says something different?
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Uh huh.. So you are not an expert, nor did you actually examine his body and instead cite that other experts disagree with Tobin, without naming or citing their studies in regards to Floyd's cause of death after their examination of Floyd or his autopsy results.. Okay then..

    Chauvin has already been found guilty. So if you have evidence that he is not, please contact his lawyers. I would suggest, however, that you read the autopsy report you linked on this site before you do.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No, the officers never had Floyd completely in the car. As soon as Chauvin pulled him in enough to close the other door, Floyd pushed himself out Chauvin's side.
    Floyd shoved himself out of the car, as evidenced in both the body cam and cctv footage showing Chauvin didn't have a grip on him and immediately tried to push him back into the car as soon as Floyd slammed into him.
    Floyd had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, had zero damage to his neck, back, airway, carotid, or anything else evidencing excessive force that could hinder breathing. If Floyd would have survived had he not resisted being put in the car, then his death is still his own fault, because he resisted. And Floyd had overdosed on opioids only two months earlier, spending five days in the hospital.
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Cutting out a crap ton of your irrelevant ad hominems and bullshit for brevity....
    I don't really care what government bureaucrats consider for the sake of the census and citizenship back in the day. Since I wasn't talking about the law, that's a complete straw man. If you really want to whitewash many diverse ethnic groups, that's on you.
    If that's the shot that got him to surrender, yes. Police do not aim for the legs. They are trained to aim center-mass.
    Because no one cares that police kill more white people than black people, even while black people commit more crime than their percentage of the population.
    It's hypocritical that you only pretend to care after it's happened to a black man.
    Higher rates of crime than their percent of the population more than explains the disproportionate police interactions and deaths, and their crime rate is substantiated by government statistics on who black victims identify as their perpetrators. So unless black people are lying to make black people look bad...
    No one cares about white guys dying at the hands of the police, especially if they resist or struggle. And if you suddenly do, let me know when you organize a protest to shout their names over a bullhorn.
    Try this. Go to a closed door and grab the knob. Now try to pull as hard as you can. See how you body is behind your feet? That's the exact opposite we see Chauvin doing in the cctv footage (that you cited, mind you). Chauvin tried to push Floyd back into the car, until Floyd asked to be laid on the ground. You don't have any serious eyesight problems, do you? No, just cognitive?
    Where do you imagine I said he was warranted in drawing his gun on the motorcyclist? Just because he did it doesn't make it warranted. This is an irrelevant red herring, as you introduced it to refute police not leaving a person in custody unsecured. The motorcyclist was not in custody at the time. End of your irrelevant non sequitur.
    He literally asked to be laid on the ground. You have hearing problems too?
    As I've already told you, the fire department didn't arrive until it was over. All the police on the scene, including one across the street who couldn't see everything, and the EMTs considered it an unsafe scene. That's why the EMTs didn't attempt to resuscitate Floyd right there, losing valuable time if he has been deprived of oxygen.
    Rereading your motivated reasoning that flouts basic reasoning is not going to improve it.
    So you have evidence that you knew Markle was black, just from looking at her? I watched her on "Suits" and never knew. Maybe you have evidence of some other black person who fully passes for white being the victim of racism? If not, you're just full of shit.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You're lying again, even according to your own citation. Or is that your poor reading comprehension again?
    Nothing but lies. Man, you really can't stand a black woman who think differently than you. Not like you aren't hateful to everyone who disagrees with you.
    Owens knows the origin.
    Again, learn to read. "Blacks were better under Jim Crow, but only in specific ways..." Citing every way they weren't better doesn't refute Owens' claim.
    Of course you'd say that, as you infer all sorts of things based solely on my race. Because you're the racist.
    So she's not enough black, huh? Weren't you just complaining about her saying that about Markle? Hypocrite.
    Excusing cherry-picking because that's all you found in a search designed to find just that is intellectually dishonest. It obviously wasn't clear, as you still haven't answered the very simple question.

    Do you agree that not all Confederate flag wavers are racist?

    If so, we agree. Cheers.
    No, your comment only attempted to justify your racism. And you're still lying to justify it. You are literally saying that skin color alone makes someone's opinions somehow invalid. That is literally racist. Own it or quit being that crappy person.
     
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Tough one. Would hinge on how much internal and external pressures were / are perceived to have influenced individual jury members

    Problems if overturned (mistrial) almost impossible to retry

    He didn't get a fair trial. OK. What makes anyone think, considering the extra publicity and opinions expressed post verdict, make another trial easier?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And the medical examiner and the doctors who examined his body all disagree with you. Experts also disagree with you:

    Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a toxicologist at NMS Labs in Pennsylvania, presented data at trial from more than 2,300 blood samples in fentanyl DUI cases from the last year. He showed that while the average fentanyl blood level was close to 9.6 ng/ml, a quarter of people tested had 11 ng/ml or higher. (Important to note: Blood samples were taken from drivers who tested positive for fentanyl and were alive at the time of collection.)

    Isenschmid also showed that Floyd's blood ratio of fentanyl to norfentanyl, the molecule fentanyl is broken down to once in the body, was lower than the average ratio both for people who died of overdoses and those arrested for DUI who lived.

    Overdose victims who die rarely have norfentanyl in their blood, since death often occurs before the body can break the drug down, he said.

    Isenschmid's testimony was supported by pulmonologist and critical care specialist Dr. Martin Tobin of Loyola University Medical Center.

    "Mr. Floyd died from a low level of oxygen, and this caused damage to his brain that we see. And it also caused a PEA (pulseless electrical activity) arrhythmia that caused his heart to stop," he told the court. He explained Floyd's body position on the street, handcuffs pulling his arms back and a knee on his neck, back and sides, led to his low oxygen levels.

    "All of these four forces are ultimately going to result in the low tidal volume, which gives you the shallow breaths" that can't effectively bring oxygen into the lungs, Tobin said.

    He stated because fentanyl typically slows down a person's breathing, the drug was not a contributing factor based on his calculations of Floyd's breathing rate based on witness video, which at the time appeared about the same as a healthy individual.


    This whole three times the lethal dose is the kind of crap that started spreading on Facebook.

    The irony...
    You were simply talking like a bigot who is now pitching a fit because a Muslim American can be considered "white". No bigotry or racism there....
    There's a contradiction there.
    Everyone cares that police brutality in the US and elsewhere around the world is on the rise. BLM also speak for white people shot by police as well. You do know this, yes?

    Police brutality is a civil rights issue.

    And as for your nice little nugget on the end there:

    Today, scholars attribute racial/ethnic differences in offending to several sociological factors (Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). First, African Americans and Latinos are much poorer than whites on the average, and poverty contributes to higher crime rates. Second, they are also more likely to live in urban areas, which, as we have seen, also contribute to higher crime rates. Third, the racial and ethnic discrimination they experience leads to anger and frustration that in turn can promote criminal behavior. Although there is less research on Native Americans’ criminality, they, too, appear to have higher crime rates than whites because of their much greater poverty and experience of racial discrimination (McCarthy & Hagan, 2003).

    In appreciating racial/ethnic differences in street crime rates, it is important to keep in mind that whites commit most white-collar crime, and especially corporate crime, as it is white people who lead and manage our many corporations. Just as social class affects the type of crime that people do, so do race and ethnicity. Wealthy, white people commit much crime, but it is white-collar crime they tend to commit, not street crime
    .​

    And it is evil that you only care about one and not the other.

    You don't care how the government classifies white people, but you are happy to use government sources by how they classify crime and racial breakdown of crime?

    Frankly, with that attitude, I'm surprised and shocked that you were going on about due process in another thread. Oh wait. That only applies to a certain class of people for you.

    Why do you say that?

    BLM is about police reform first and foremost and highlights the disproportionate number of black people unnecessarily killed by police violence. You don't think about Deven Guilford, Jeremy Mardis, Zachary Hammond, Justice Damond, and how their deaths were at the hands of police brutality and police acting in a way that defied logic or acceptable behaviour for their position.. You don't think it matters?

    Civil rights lawyers represent these families as much as they represent families of black people killed by police brutality. Floyd's lawyer is the one who has been trying to garner attention to other white men killed in the same manner as George Floyd. Why? Because it's a goddamn disgrace that police officers can behave this way and get away with it.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The reports state that Chauvin put him on the ground to detain him and also state that he was dragged out of the car by Chauvin for reasons unknown..

    You are literally attempting to rewrite the entire thing. It's frankly ridiculous.

    Here is what I said. Read it again and tell me where I said you warranted his drawing his gun on the motorcyclist. I said "he", ie, the police officer warranted drawing his gun on the motorcyclist:

    And again, he warranted the motorcyclist to be enough of a threat that he pulled his weapon out. Despite the guy sitting on his bike in a drive way with his hands up in the air.. But then he realises he's being filmed and the guy with the phone on his front porch is suddenly the bigger threat that he leaves the guy he deemed dangerous enough to draw his weapon on was left forgotten as he launched his verbal and then physical attack on a guy sitting on his own front porch filming the officer who had entered his front yard with his gun drawn?

    So unless you were the police officer involved, "he" is not you.

    Did he ask to be knelt on by several grown men and killed?

    The paramedics who arrived to treat him never said the crowd was unruly or felt unsafe because of the less than a dozen people (including 4 children) gathered at the scene.

    Paramedic Seth Bravindar said he had to ask Mr Chauvin to get off Mr Floyd so that they could access the patient.

    [...]


    Mr Bravinder said the initial call-out was deemed non-life threatening although that soon changed.

    He told the court he initially thought that a struggle was taking place when he and his partner arrived on the scene, but quickly realised that Mr Floyd, 46, was limp.

    Asked about video footage showing him gesturing to Mr Chauvin, Mr Bravinder said he wanted to "have him move" and this was "so we could move the patient".

    His partner Derek Smith checked Mr Floyd's neck for a pulse but could not find one. "In lay terms, I thought he was dead," Mr Smith said.

    "When I arrived on scene there was no medical services being provided to the patient," he added.


    Mr Bravinder cradled Mr Floyd's head to prevent it from hitting the road as they transferred him to a stretcher.

    They put him in an ambulance and started chest compressions.

    At one point Mr Smith thought he saw electrical activity from Mr Floyd's heart and delivered an electrical shock to try to restart it. "He was a human being and I was trying to give him a second chance at life," he said.
    The police supervisor had this to say in the trial:


    Jurors also heard from David Pleoger, the supervising police officer on duty that day, who said he only learned later in the evening that Mr Chauvin had restrained Mr Floyd by kneeling on his neck.

    He told the court that an officer should stop using the knee as a restraint once "you get control of the situation" and the suspect is in handcuffs.

    "Leave someone on their stomach for too long, their breathing will be compromised, so you'll want to get them up out of that position," he said.
    Nothing at all about anyone feeling unsafe. Can you show where the EMT's said the scene was considered "unsafe"?

    I had always said the fire department arrived a few minutes after the ambulance had left. So I honestly don't know what you're on about now. It's like you're inventing crap with which to disagree with at this point.

    My god, the racism just keeps continuing.
    I linked her words. There's even video.

    Go on, keep rewriting history and reality. It's literally as though you get all your news and facts from weird sites on Facebook or something.
    She literally did those things.

    Just like Chauvin literally knelt on a man's neck until he died. That's not a lie.

    Sometimes, some people are just bad.
    If you say so.
    You mean in regards to the family unit?

    While ignoring how under Jim Crow, families were forced to flee racism and segregation, thereby eroding what wealth they had managed to accumulate (given the rights of whites to simply take what they wanted and destroy black businesses and had done so), seeing the family unit then essentially break down over the years as a result of crippling poverty, systemic racism and lack of rights..

    Sure, if that's how you define "better", you do you.

    Okay, at this point I really do need to ask.

    What makes you think or believe that it's acceptable to use Owen as though she is a weapon of colour for you to trot out?

    I think she's a fraud. It has nothing to do with the colour of her skin. I also think Trump is a fraud. It has nothing to do with the colour of his skin. I think they are frauds because of their character and actions.

    She is the one defining who is black enough when she made those comments about Markle. Remember. You are the one who parroted those remarks:

    And now you are projecting yourself onto me again.

    Check yourself in the mirror. I'm not the one saying someone is black enough or not black enough. You are.
    No. I don't agree.

    I think if you are walking around carrying that flag and knowing it's history and use, then you are accepting of its usage and history and thus, part of the problem and feeds the systemic racism that plagues society.

    Understand now?
    And you are using Ms Owens colour as a tool to project your own bigotry and racism and somehow suggesting that her colour makes her opinion more valid.

    See how that works?
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    She was an alternate juror and therefore, not in the deliberation room.

    Becker News is a far right wing Trump following website.

    The article posted the comment completely out of context.

    The original interview transcripts can be found here: https://www.kare11.com/article/news...ensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18

    And for the record, she also states she would have voted guilty because she felt Chauvin was responsible for Floyd's death and details what swayed her to believe he is guilty.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    He is, however, an Internet Expert. Lots of those around.
     
  19. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Sometimes, I just read articles, blogs, etc without examining if the source might have an agenda. Sadly, this case has placed Democrats and Republicans at even further odds which doesn’t make sense - why not simply follow the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions? That if someone agrees with the verdict in this case, it’s somehow an indicator of betraying one’s “party line,” is unfortunate. On average, Republicans seem to be more disappointed in the verdict than Democrats.

    Anyway, I took into consideration that she was an alternate but it sounds reasonable given the gravity and publicity of this case, that the jury felt some anxiety. Aside from that, the judge stated that he felt there could be grounds for an appeal based on what “elected officials” had stated in the press. He mentioned Maxine Waters. I’m not a legal expert, but that struck me as unethical(?) to already be discussing an appeal (on public television) before reaching a verdict?

    Statistics have shown though that roughly 90% of verdicts aren’t overturned on appeal, so it’s likely that Chauvin’s chances are slim.


     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Yes, they did. A killer would walk free - and the jury did not want that to happen. Good for them.
     
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    From Chauvin’s past...

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-floyd-death-derek-chauvin-case-b1725071.html

    So, the judge in the Chauvin trial allowed a past traffic stop from 2019 involving George Floyd to show a pattern of his behavior, but didn’t allow Chauvin’s record of prior abuse during past arrests, or at least this one incident from 2017. Floyd wasn’t on trial but Chauvin was. From a legal perspective, why was this allowed? I understand that judges may leave out past events of a defendant that may prejudice a jury, but why wouldn’t that same mindset apply to Floyd in this case?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2021
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    You just answered your own question...Floyd wasn't on trial so it can't prejudice his jury as there isn't one. Regarding the judge's comment about M. Waters comment potentially helping the defense on appeal...that wasn't done in front of the jury. The fact that it was on TV isn't relevant since the decision to put the trial on TV was decided by others in the name of transparency and public education.
     

Share This Page