Just realized the specific answer to your question is that if Floyd died of an OD or from the technique is that the ME obviously didn't think they looked similar enough to state that Floyd died of an OD.
More evidence that Chauvin was operating with a depraved mind if he needed to be prompted to get off an already unconscious Floyd so Floyd could be tended to.
@StupidMoniker Since you've been asking questions here's another one. If you were in a hospital and saw someone putting a pillow over the the face of a heart patient and a few minutes later that patient was dead would you say that was a homicide?
The paramedics are not really helping the defendant at all. Pretty clear that at least some of them believe this was completely unacceptable.
If he had died from a drug overdose and the stress of struggling with the police, there would be an autopsy entered into evidence that said the cause of death was drug overdose. That evidence doesn't exist. There is evidence that clearly and unequivocally states that the cause of death was homicide caused by the knee to his neck.
Except there is evidence to support a theory that he could have died at the exact same time and in the exact same manner with no effect from Chauvin, even though we see Chauvin's knee on his neck. That is why I am asking this question. The evidence is present in the video, in the MPD training materials, and in the coroners report. In the video, we see Floyd complaining of difficulty breathing when he is standing outside the car. It is apparent to everyone that he is on some sort of substance, from the clerk to the people in the car with him to the officers. While moving him from the wall to the SUV, Officer Kueng notes that he has foam around his mouth. In the MPD training materials we see the dangers of excited delirium and signs and symptoms that may occur when this condition which leads to death in something like 10% of cases, usually during restraint by law enforcement, which includes anxiety, psychomotor agitation, superhuman strength, disorientation, and violent behavior. Risk factors for excited delirium include long term substance abuse, including the use of methamphetamines, and heart conditions. Death occurs by cardiopulmonary arrest. In the coroners report, we see evidence of both lethal levels of narcotics, but also preexisting heart and vascular conditions. So no, this is not like saying an invisible alien may have killed him and we know it because we didn't see the alien. You are discounting all of this evidence because there was also a knee on his neck. That is why I return to the question, what evidence would appear different if it was the drugs and his physical condition that caused his death, and not the knee on his neck? You are answering here the opposite of the question I asked. What I asked was, "What facts, if any, do you observe that would support the conclusion that Chauvin did not want Floyd to die (ie cared about his life/did not have a depraved heart), even if you believe they are outweighed by other facts?" I bolded the critical difference. I was not making any assumption. I was asking you to make that assumption and then answer my question. If it was already answered, I would not keep asking. No one has answered my question. I thought it was a fairly clear question, but the fact that people keep saying it was answered when it was not makes me think it is not being understood. Unfortunately, I don't know how to reformulate the question to make people understand it. I listed that evidence above. I don't know that it is possible to prove that. From the defense perspective, that doesn't matter. The defense doesn't need to prove that he DID die from an OD at that time, only that it is possible that he died from an OD at that time. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, which includes disproving any reasonably plausible alternative theories. A brief tangent for an example, I had a case where my defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The prosecution presented evidence that my client was a convicted felon, that he was the owner and sole driver of a particular car, and that an officer saw my client climb into the car and rummage around in the backseat area. There was no one else in or around the car. The officer looked into the car, but did not see a firearm, but subsequently searched the car and found a revolver under a shirt or blanket or something in the right rear floorboard. I presented essentially only that the officer saw my client be dropped off at that location in another vehicle, enter the car and do the aforementioned rummaging, and then leave the car and return to the other vehicle which began to drive away, and that the firearm was not in an orientation that would suggest someone in the position of my client would be holding it by the handle and place it in the location it was recovered, because the handle was pointing up, not down. My argument was that the officer made no observations that the car had been locked prior to his arrival, and we have no idea who else may have accessed the car and stashed the gun there. My client was acquitted, because the prosecution was not able to present sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that someone else had stashed the revolver their at an earlier time without my clients knowledge. So the only difference you would expect to see in the evidence is a difference conclusion from the ME?
We like to look at the whole report for evidence, not just the conclusion. Could be. If the coroners report talked about cardiac arrest, but ultimately concluded that the cause of death was asphyxiation, that might cause some issues. Of course, in such a case there is substantially more evidence of an intent to kill.
I've not denied he had a lot of drugs in his system and in fact said it was the strongest argument made. That said while yes Floyd had a lot of drugs in his system and also a heart condition that still doesn't show that at that particular 9 minute stretch that Floyd would've died on his own without Chauvin doing anything as opposed to if he would've died at any point later. Also accepting Floyd was in a physically precarious condition if Chauvin's actions had pushed him over to death that would be at the minimum manslaughter just as putting a pillow over a heart patient's face could cause enough stress for them to go into arrest. Your question is to imagine there wasn't a knee on his neck what would we see. That's a thought exercise as much as imagine if there was an alien there. The actual evidence is that there was a knee on his neck. My apologies I read that post on my phone and sometimes I read it to quickly. To be honest I don't see a lot of evidence going the other way. The most I could say was he didn't slam Floyd to the ground and he didn't use more force, such as he didn't use a taser, start punching Floyd or use his firearm. If you're looking for that as a defensive argument "well he didn't shoot Floyd" That's a pretty thin argument. So the defense argument IS to ask others to make assumptions.. Got it. There's no need to reformulate the question. It looks like there's no answer that you will accept. You listed some evidence I will grant you that but let's flip it around. What evidence is it that an OD at that particular moment is more likely than that he died from Chauvin's actions? So in other words it is "it's impossible to prove a negative". As we all can agree on here the argument is reasonableness. Now we can both agree that an invisible alien is not a reasonable argument. The argument that Floyd died from an OD yes there is evidence so it could be reasonable but that still has to be weighed against the facts that we did see Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for what everyone, including Chauvin's CO, was an excessive amount of time not according to MPD procedure or training, and against concern that was shown by others including LEO on the scene. The most likely logical conclusion is that Chauvin's actions led to Floyd's death. Now again we can't disprove a negative so there is no way to say absolutely that Floyd didn't die because of Chauvin's actions but that relies on a far greater degree of speculation, including ignoring evidence, than the logical conclusion that Floyd died because of Chauvin. I'm not an ME. Are you? This is why we call it expert testimony.
The reason why I phrased the question as I did was that the respiratory system and circulatory system are closely related so most likely a person would a weak heart would go into arrest before they died of asphyxiation. I find it interesting that you answered the way you di. You wrote "If the coroners report talked about cardiac arrest, but ultimately concluded that the cause of death was asphyxiation, that might cause some issues" So you are also looking at the conclusion.
No it does not, but it does allow the consideration of the other evidence. You are not required to accept that the conclusion of the medical examiner is proof of the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were, there would be no need for a trial at all, just ask the medical examiner if Chauvin is guilty or not. Even a medical examiner will tell you that their conclusion is their opinion of the most likely cause of death, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that no other cause of death is possible. It doesn't need to be shown that he definitely would have died during that nine minute stretch. It has to be reasonably possible that he would have died during that nine minute stretch. If you accept the premise that he had the proper conditions to die of a drug overdose, then you must accept that it is reasonably possible he would have died of the overdose during that period unless it can be proved that is not the case. The fact that another possible cause of death was also present does not negate that defense. No. No no no no. My question is to assume that it was a drug overdose and not the knee on his neck that killed him. The knee is still there, but the drugs kill him before the knee can cause him any form of permanent injury. We have evidence that Floyd had a large amount of various drugs in his system, we don't have evidence of an alien. Yes, and I am asking you to assume, for the sake of argument, that it was not the knee on his neck that killed him. What would change with regard to everything else you see in the case? 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? No. The defense argument is to point out other reasonable conclusions. One method of coming to those conclusions is to ask people to consider hypothetical scenarios. That is an odd conclusion to draw, considering no one has made an attempt to answer my question, unless the answer is the medical examiner would have drawn a different conclusion. If that is the answer, then acquittal is the proper outcome. It doesn't need to be more likely. It only needs to be reasonably possible. Yes, and the rest of what I said. If you accept that it could be reasonable, then you don't have to weigh it against the acts that we did see Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for what everyone, including Chauvin's CO, was an excessive amount of time not according to MPD procedure or training, and against concern that was shown by others including LEO on the scene. It doesn't matter what the most likely logical conclusion is. If it is a reasonable possibility that Floyd was killed by the drugs, the jury is required to accept that possibility and acquit Chauvin. That is what the jury instructions say, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. No, I am a prosecutor. I am aware of why we call things expert testimony. Of course. You also look at the conclusion. The conclusion is just not dispositive. A far greater factor would be the obvious intent of pressing the pillow over someone's face.
Key witness Mo Lester Hall won't testify and will plead the 5th. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/morries-hall-witness-testimony.html
Again, so if he felt he needed urgent care and was limp and obviously unconscious, why did he continue to keep his knee to his neck? He sure as hell didn't need to continue using unnecessary force and restraint.
I think the whole "rowdy crowd threat" by the defense was lame. A few kids and bystanders, mainly girls, who saw a situation and started video taping it, after seeing a man restrained and pleading for his life. It would be almost inhumane to not speak out when you thought he was in danger of dying. Sure, when they were ignored insults began being directed, but they weren't attacking, throwing things, or threatening physical violence towards the cops. They stepped right back onto the sidewalk when told to.
To answer your question, obviously I don't know what is in his head, but I would guess maybe he just wanted to hold him in place until the medics got there. Why do you think he and the other officers did the things I mentioned in the post you were quoting if he did not care if Floyd died?
Just curious, no judgment, but all the devil's advocate stuff aside, do you actually believe your theory is a possibility? I mean, 100% honest?
Which theory, that he wasn't trying to kill or injure him? Not only do I think it is a possibility, I think it is almost a certainty. That he died of an overdose or other complications related to his drug consumption and health? Certainly a possibility, probably likely that Chauvin contributed to his death, but not likely provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, he didn't need a knee on his neck at the point he wasn't fighting, nor anytime after that. They should have listened to bystanders screaming concerns, when he appeared to be unconscious and not breathing. They should have checked him themselves, rolled him over, checked for a breath and initiated CPR at that point. As the supervisor said, you are required to continually reassess the situation when it comes to force and restraint, and stop the knee to the neck if it isn't absolutely necessary. He did not do that. His negligence, and actions led to George Floyd's death. His comrades are just as guilty by doing nothing themselves that could have saved his life at the crucial moment.
