• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bad day for the Prosecution in Chauvin trial

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I notice most of the folks who think the police are innocent are also racists so of course the black guy is guilty.
Race card duty noted. Many of us don't think the police are innocent, maybe not of murder, but more manslaughter. Sorry if evidence gets in the way of your agenda.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
33,464
Reaction score
22,278
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Race card duty noted. Many of us don't think the police are innocent, maybe not of murder, but more manslaughter. Sorry if evidence gets in the way of your agenda.

He had no reason to kill him once he was on the floor in cuffs.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Right. Because "I ate too many drugs!" makes way more sense for someone to be screaming while being pinned by four police officers than, oh, I don't know, maybe "I ain't do any drugs!"
Even if he said I ain't do no drugs, we know for sure that's a lie.
That doesn't do the prosecution any favors.

I don't think the statement -whatver it was- makes much differend if the ME testifies had a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let's not forget that both autopsies confirmed that Floyd's death was due to asphyxiation, not from any narcotics in his system.
Well then that seals the deal ,doesn't it?
No sense having the defense question those findings,. That never happens in a trial.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
1,998
Reaction score
1,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That would be in addition too, not in lieu of...the idea is to use a taser to have George stop resisting arrest so they can subdue him.
OK, so why didn't they if they were in fear for their safety?
 

Aunt Antifa

Racism strikes out
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
18,725
Reaction score
8,672
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
25,275
Reaction score
8,746
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well then that seals the deal ,doesn't it?
No sense having the defense question those findings,. That never happens in a trial.
How is the defense going to question those findings? A third autopsy, maybe, and be embarrassed again?
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well then that seals the deal ,doesn't it?
No sense having the defense question those findings,. That never happens in a trial.
Oh, lets not forget the Defence has yet to bring their case to refute the autopsy findings. Which in several cases refute each other. One in which the preliminary autopsy which shows a variety of causes that lead to his death. As well as the final autopsy, by the same man, does not find asphyxia as the cause of death.
 

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
25,275
Reaction score
8,746
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh, lets not forget the Defence has yet to bring their case to refute the autopsy findings. Which in several cases refute each other. One in which the preliminary autopsy which shows a variety of causes that lead to his death. As well as the final autopsy, by the same man, does not find asphyxia as the cause of death.
Nope.
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
OK, so why didn't they if they were in fear for their safety?
What, two or three additional officers at the scene to help subdue him? Note, doesn't mean they still could not have use of the taser as an option.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
144,000
Reaction score
47,231
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh, lets not forget the Defence has yet to bring their case to refute the autopsy findings. Which in several cases refute each other. One in which the preliminary autopsy which shows a variety of causes that lead to his death. As well as the final autopsy, by the same man, does not find asphyxia as the cause of death.
Don't pop the champagne just yet.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
that is the message here, pretty sick isn't it?
Let's not forget that both autopsies confirmed that Floyd's death was due to asphyxiation, not from any narcotics in his system.
"Then for the first time in my recollection Nelson touched on the fact that the medical examiner found no damage to Floyd’s neck whatever. Wouldn’t you expect damage if the weight place on the neck was substantial. Stiger prudently declined to offer an opinion.

And then Nelson used a little trick we’ve seen him use with other witnesses. That’s fine, he said, I get it. Better for us to ask a doctor that, right? Right, agreed Stiger.

Anybody doubt Nelson has a doctor lined up to say exactly that, and that the jury will perceive that even the state’s own use-of-force expert witness believes that the doctor’s opinion is more credible than the state’s expert?"

OOPS
 

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
25,275
Reaction score
8,746
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"Then for the first time in my recollection Nelson touched on the fact that the medical examiner found no damage to Floyd’s neck whatever. Wouldn’t you expect damage if the weight place on the neck was substantial. Stiger prudently declined to offer an opinion.

And then Nelson used a little trick we’ve seen him use with other witnesses. That’s fine, he said, I get it. Better for us to ask a doctor that, right? Right, agreed Stiger.

Anybody doubt Nelson has a doctor lined up to say exactly that, and that the jury will perceive that even the state’s own use-of-force expert witness believes that the doctor’s opinion is more credible than the state’s expert?"

OOPS
So your training in forensic pathology was, when?
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
14,077
Reaction score
4,890
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!

Amazing.
I can't believe you OP Klattu and much less believe how unbelievably wrong you are that this hurts the prosecution.

First of all, Police have been trained to take people that have suffered a possible overdose to take them to the hospital for care to save their lives. The last thing a policeman should do with a person that has already been cuffed and under police control is to continue to use force. Drugged people cannot help themselves and it is the responsibility of a policeman to do what is best (medically speaking) to prevent the man's death from drugs.

There was no threat of personal harm to the policeman from Floyd.

To me, the fact that Floyd stated that he had eaten"too many drugs" is a negative for the defense as that means the policeman knew that he was drugged and didn't care about his health.

Klattu, you always surprise me in a negative way. You often appear to be non-thinking, no common sense, uncaring person. You are doing harm to yourself with these OP's. The only thing you are accomplishing with them, is making yourself look bad.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
144,000
Reaction score
47,231
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Even if he said I ain't do no drugs, we know for sure that's a lie.
That doesn't do the prosecution any favors.

I don't think the statement -whatver it was- makes much differend if the ME testifies had a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system.
Don't worry. The penalty for killing a black guy will be minimal, even if they jury convicts.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
33,464
Reaction score
22,278
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Oh, lets not forget the Defence has yet to bring their case to refute the autopsy findings. Which in several cases refute each other. One in which the preliminary autopsy which shows a variety of causes that lead to his death. As well as the final autopsy, by the same man, does not find asphyxia as the cause of death.

He murdered him on live TV by applying his knee to Floyd's neck until he was dead. And then some.
.
 

Mashmont

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
17,467
Reaction score
1,430
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!

Amazing.
What you have to understand is the facts of the case don't matter. In fact, the leftwing puppet masters magnifying this whole episode would be thrilled for an acquittal. Then, more outrage, more riots. Gets us that much closer to the collapse and takeover.
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nope.
Yep, in spades..

But the report released later Monday by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office said Floyd died of "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression." The manner of death was ruled homicide, but the office noted that "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent." A preliminary autopsy report cited earlier by prosecutors said the county medical examiner's review "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."


Preliminary autopsy report:

The report states that there were no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxiation or strangulation. It also states that Mr. Floyd had some underlying health conditions, including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. Finally, the preliminary autopsy report states that the contributing factors to Mr. Floyd's death are a combination of the restraint by the ex-officer, underlying health conditions, and potential intoxicants. It states that these are likely the cause of death.
Medical Examiners notes on fentanyl found in his system:

"Handwritten notes of a law enforcement interview with Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, say Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system.

"If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3," Baker told investigators.
Reasonable doubt all over the place.
 

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
25,275
Reaction score
8,746
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What you have to understand is the facts of the case don't matter. In fact, the leftwing puppet masters magnifying this whole episode would be thrilled for an acquittal. Then, more outrage, more riots. Gets us that much closer to the collapse and takeover.
The facts don't matter to you, you mean. By the way, aren't you also black? I seem to recall you telling the forum that you are.
 

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
25,275
Reaction score
8,746
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yep, in spades..



Preliminary autopsy report:



Medical Examiners notes on fentanyl found in his system:



Reasonable doubt all over the place.
Homicide was ruled the cause of death in both cases.
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Homicide was ruled the cause of death in both cases.
A finding of homicide doesn't necessarily make it murder and doesn't rule out manslaughter or acquittal. That is determined in a court of law, not an autopsy report.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
How is the defense going to question those findings?
DAILY Chuckle
. You're right . It can't be done. The defense never questions ME findings.
I don't know why they wasted time with a trial. The ME said it was homicide and we have the video,
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,286
Reaction score
5,785
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Even if he said I ain't do no drugs, we know for sure that's a lie.
That doesn't do the prosecution any favors.

I don't think the statement -whatver it was- makes much differend if the ME testifies had a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system.
It doesn't do the defense any favors either. Criminals lie all the time while being arrested. That has nothing to do with whether the level of force used was warranted. Seems like every one of Chauvin's fellow officers are testifying that it was not warranted.

And the ME has already determined cause of death: "His death was caused by the police subdual and restraint in the setting of severe hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and methamphetamine and fentanyl intoxication."

Even if Floyd had a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system, and even if that amount would have definitely killed him had he not first been murdered, it doesn't excuse the murder itself.
 
Top Bottom