Again that is a professional opinion from an expert witness. Certainly you can dismiss an expert's testimony but it would be reasonable to provide some other expert opinion on that matter than just speculation. Again you claim that you aren't ignoring the knee on the neck but then repeat again for the sake of argument that it was not the knee on the neck that killed him. This is the logical flaw of the argument being presented. That is one of the key assumptions required to accept that argument. No worries, it is a friendly discussion, not an interrogation with a ticking time bomb. I think there are several pieces of evidence that point that way you have ignored. The officers were going out of their way to try to calm Floyd down and get him safely in the back of their SUV. They offered to sit with him. They offered to roll down the window and turn on the A/C. They called an ambulance to respond to the scene and provide medical aid. Chauvin specifically stepped up the call for the ambulance from code 2 to code 3 so it would arrive faster. Don't all of these actions evince a concern for Floyd's health and well being? If Chauvin didn't care if he lived or died, why call an ambulance at all? Did he plan to kill him before the ambulance would arrive? Did he step up the urgency to code 3 so that he would have more of a challenge to kill Floyd in time?[/quote] All of that has to be weighed against the other evidence. Given that those actions were earlier in the sequence of events then it could be inferred that Chauvin became frustrated with Floyd and by the time he started to kneel on Floyd he was acting out malice. Again this argument requires an assumption on Chauvin's mindset that would ignore that he did use a technique excessively against MPD police and the concerns of other LEO. This is a basic problem with this debate. Neither you nor I are on the jury. I am not the prosecutor and you are not Chauvin's defense attorney. I'm willing to acknowledge that Chauvin very well could be acquitted as we've seen plenty of cases where the evidence appeared overwhelming but the result was different. Not being a jury member or Chauvin's defense attorney you've chosen to argue that Chauvin is innocent. The arguments you're presenting are based on assumption and on the logical fallacy of you can't disprove a negative. You are also presenting a positive argument that Floyd died of an OD. As such then for the sake of this debate it would be expected that you would provide evidence why that particular moment Floyd died of an OD before the technique Chauvin was used. I and others have already in great detail explained why that technique is dangerous and in this matter I do consider myself an expert. "Reasonable" as we know is a subjective standard. I'm asking you to provide some more objectivity to the argument you're presenting. Leaving that aside the argument as you presented which I think is going to be similar to the what Chauvin's actual defense is rest mostly on two assumptions. 1. That the technique Chauvin used isn't that dangerous. 2. That Floyd died of an OD. We've been through extensively why 1 isn't correct, including why MPD policy limits it's use. 2 while yes Floyd did have a lot of fentenyl in his system there is no certainty or direct evidence saying he did die of an OD. It's logical to presume that Floyd could've died form an OD but this is where timing matters. Showing that the technique Chauvin used was dangerous and excessive it's both logical and reasonable to say that that killed Floyd because we see that just as it would be reasonable to to say that seeing someone put a pillow over a heart patients face they died from that action than from a heart attack completely independent of that action. As a prosecutor then is it correct to assume you've relied upon expert testimony for cases? Would you say it is reasonable to weigh the opinion of an expert more than speculation from a non-expert?
Even without the crowd we already know that Chauvin went against MPD policy and his superior officer testified that he didn't act properly. From the line of the defense questioning I'm guessing that they will argue that Chauvin was distracted by the crowd so wasn't aware of what he was doing and/or lost track of the time he was on Floyd's neck. The problem with that is that other LEO were raising concerns.
If the standard is prove beyond reasonable doubt that the knee caused his death, don’t we have to consider the possibility that the knee didn’t cause his death (i.e. the likelihood he dies if hypothetically the officer didn’t sit on top of him)? I think the prosecution needs to show that his death would have been very unlikely without the officer acting as he did, but the combination of Floyd’s state and the officer’s action made his death likely.
All of that points to negligence and not following procedures. The defense using the argument regarding a so called crowd is really lame. If that is a defense, then they are saying police can kill anyone on a street by knee to the neck, for as long as they want, even if a suspect stops resisting, becomes limp, stops breathing, loses consciousness and dies, and be justified by saying they were distracted by people on the sidewalk and lost track of time.
Is it possible that he panicked and was worried that if he got up and exposed Floyd’s lifeless state to the gathering crowd then there would be a riot or something?
That's possible but just my guess as the defense has asked several questions about the crowd even asking the firefighter if she could've done her job with that crowd to say the crowd was distracting Chauvin. I just listened to a non MN prosecutor talking about the case. That prosecutor said that it's going to be very hard to argue that what Chauvin did wasn't harmful but that the argument that Floyd didn't die from that technique but from an OD is stronger and it will come down to dueling medical experts. She's expecting that the defense will call their own. She also said that most likely the defense isn't aiming for an acquittal outright but trying to get a hung jury to retry the case at a different venue.
@rocketsjudoka I flew in to Minneapolis last night for work but I'm in Manketo. Y'all have a beautiful airport. It's like a mall more than the limited number of airports I've been in
Just think if they had actually let that off duty EMT access the situation and initiate CPR instead of ignoring her pleas. Pure negligence on their part.
This is the point I'm debating with Stupidmoniker. It requires an assumption that the knee didn't cause his death yet we see the knee. NOw I agree we can't ignore that Floyd had a lot of fentenyl in his system and that could lead to an OD. That said: 1. we see Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck. 2. We know Floyd died while Chauvin was on top of him. 3. We know that that technique was done excessively against MPD policy. That points to the most likely and logical outcome is that Floyd died because of Chauvin's actions. That he might;ve died from an OD is possible but that's why I asked the question why that particular moment? What is it reasonable to assume that coincindently Floyd OD right at that particular moment and not say 5 minutes or an hour after Chauvin got off of him. It's a hypothetical that Floyd would've died if Chauvin did nothing. We know that Floyd died while Chauvin was doing something.
Glad you like it. They did a lot of work on it 10 year's ago and have been making improvements. Mankato is where my ex lives and also I was there last week for a meeting. Not very exciting place.
Just opened this thread. I'm someone who argues Eric Garner's death was caused by his poor health. Judoka and I debated about the maneuver the cop used on Garner, I know it was banned but regardless that cop didn't have malicious intent imo. The drugs are obviously a problem for the prosecution here but I think they just have to stick to the logic that there was no reason to remain on Floyd's neck. Being on someone's neck for over 8 minutes is malicious. Period
Not watching the trial and not sure what exactly the prosecution will do, but the odds of a fentanyl overdose happening at the exact moment extreme pressure is applied by a knee to a prone man's neck must be alarmingly small. In anything but bullet and knife wounds, autopsies have some uncertainties, but the contortions people make here to absolve an obviously bad cop seem absurd, (to me at least). It's like, if a heavyweight boxer punches someone repeatedly in the head and that person dies in the ring, I guess we could argue that the dead boxer suffered from high blood pressure, had taken too much HGH, and had too high a blood cholesterol level, but is there a reasonable doubt that the pummeling led to the boxer's death? It boils down to the word "reasonable," and that concept, in the 21st century, has become politically ridiculous in some corners, like Dark Ages thinking is now "reasonable" to some people.
I just realized a problem with the fentanyl OD argument. Fentanyl is a powerful pain killer. If Floyd was OD on fentanyl he wouldn't have felt pain while Chauvin was using the control and compliance technique on him. We know for a fact that partly why this technique works is because it cause pain on the person held and we certainly see Floyd calling out in pain. Wouldn't it be then reasonable to say if he was that high on fentanyl to the point of OD he wouldn't be feeling pain. For that matter as opiod he wouldn't have been able to offer any resistance to begin with.
Exactly! He also said they are taught to render aid to those in distress, whether calming them, performing CPR, or anything else necessary. This is a guy who has worked the beat for years and is top in command.
Agreed. I can't imagine anyone would think those small odds provide reasonable doubt in the face of such other overwhelming evidence.
But 100% odds that the eight drugs in Floyd's system caused him to act like a danger to the community at the exact moment when he was resisting arrest. The defense won the case today. In March 2020, Floyd was hospitalized for 5 days due to a drug overdose. Morries Hall and Shawanda Hill sold Floyd the drugs and are the actual killers.
Opioids cause aggression? I guess you know that doesn't make sense and therefore no premium post claim.
This testimony and the testimony yesterday from Chauvin's seargent's are body blows to the defense. Use of force is based on a "reasonable person standard" and for LE a "reasonable officer standard". This is why it's been so hard to convictions or even indictments of LEO because the ones testifying on what's reasonable are other LEO. That we've now had two senior officers say that Chauvin's actions were excessive along with the concerns from the other LEO on scene show that his actions weren't reasonable. The argument that Chauvin's actions weren't callous or dangerous but were proper has been critically damaged.
