Dr. Tobin explaining what anyone with a brain already knows Tobin said Floyd’s underlying conditions didn’t cause his death. “A healthy person subjected to what George Floyd was subjected to would have died,” said the pulmonary expert. obviously this is an open and shut case all this dumb sh*t of “I don’t think Floyd would’ve died if he wasn’t on any drugs” like I’ve seen in this thread is just laughable unless u can prove that a healthy person would survive having a knee on their neck for 9 minutes, or that it’s reasonable to expect that they would, then just stfu because you’re clueless
Pretty damning that after he stopped breathing it was 9 minutes before he was hooked up to devices in the ambulance. If CPR had been started by any one of those cops when he stopped breathing, or after no pulse was detected they might have saved his life. If they had only paid more attention, or listened to what the bystanders were saying. If Chauvin had taken that knee off his neck, or taken pressure off his body when the breathing started diminishing, and he was fighting to catch his breath. There were so many ways this death could have been prevented. One thing is for sure, the restraint was out of line, excessive, and far beyond what was necessary.
The cause of death is open and shut but they still have to prove murder. They have to prove he knew what he was doing could kill him and he was not just reckless.
Was stopping by to post about Dr. Tobin's testimony following up on what others have posted important to note this: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/04/08/chauvin-trial-george-floyd But Tobin testified that Floyd's respiratory rate was normal until he stopped breathing. Had Floyd been impacted by fentanyl, Tobin said, his respiratory rate would have been suppressed.
This is key part of the debate I'm having with @StupidMoniker. Only the 2nd degree murder charges requires proving he intended to kill Floyd. Given how long Chauvin was on top of Floyd and how clearly he violated the MPD policy for the 2nd degree charge would be that Chauvin knowingly did this because he was trying to kill Floyd. I agree that's much harder to prove but when the prosecution sums up my guess is they will present this that was Chauvin's intention.
that is open and shut to me as well What other reason is there to have your knee on someone’s neck for 9 whole minutes, and long after they have stopped breathing, if you’re not trying to kill the person? Is that not the most likely outcome when doing something like that to another person? It’s not like he punched Floyd causing Floyd to hit his head on the floor and die or something like that where he could say he never intended to kill him when he punched him. What he did on that day? 9 minutes says you’re trying to kill him, because it’s not reasonable to expect that someone is likely to survive having a knee on their neck for that long. If I have someone in a chokehold, and they stopped breathing, but I still keep that chokehold for several more minutes and they died, would that not be murder?
I agree, but that is what a lot of attorneys are saying is the heart of the case and the biggest hurdle yet to come in the case. From what the experts are saying there can be some grey area there.
Yeah I think so as well it was just illuminating how a lot of experts where saying none of this so far proves a murder case and that the prosecution still has a lot of work. Not saying this stuff so far does not help prove the case just that it is not proving murder in and of itself.
we’ll see what happens, but for me, this case is black and white...no one can provide a reasonable explanation for why a knee on someone’s neck for that long would ever be warranted if you’re not trying to kill the person, especially after Floyd stopped breathing and he still kept his knee there for several minutes If I’m on the jury, I wouldn’t even need testimony for this one....GUILTY
I'm not watching the trial in real time but there are plenty of sources available with it along with getting heavy coverage on most media outlets. Testimony today from a medical expert specifically counters the idea that Floyd died from drugs. Also as stated even if drugs contributed Chauvin could still be found guilty if his actions substantially contributed to Floyd's death. Certainly Chauvin didn't meet a duty to care but this wasn't just a simple mistake such as say mixing up the label on a drug being injected. What is telling is the excessive amount of time this was put on with even other LEO on scene expressing a concern. If this was just general negligence Chauvin had many opportunities to correct that. Regarding him calling for an ambulance CODE 3 while that was one thing that was done correctly these standards aren't just single events. It would be a like a surgeon saying well I made the initial incisions properly but didn't close up the wound properly even though an assisting surgeon noted it and the patient bled to death. You recognize then that drawing conclusions about what symptoms that Floyd may or may not have "excited delirium" or drug use are speculative. [/quote] I suggest you see more of the LEO testimony. Will again emphasize this is the only high profile case involving an LEO killing an unarmed suspect where so many other LEO have testified against the defendant that I can recall. As you may know the standard of use of force is based on a reasonable person standard which for LEO is a reasonable officer standard. What all of these officers are saying is that Chauvin wasn't reasonable in his use of force. [quote The pain causation goes to if the fentanyl was effecting FLoyd. See today's testimony from Dr. Tobin regarding how stress on a body can kill. His conclusion is that even a fully healthy person not on drugs would've still died from the stress of this technique. I'm not as familiar with the Timpa case but if that was the case then I would certainly agree that the LEO there should be charged. In the Elijah McClain case from what I've seen he wasn't held down for very long but that his death was caused by him being injected with a massive dose of Ketamine. The presence of drugs though doesn't necessarily mean Floyd died of that but that's not exactly the point of my statement. The point is that MPD procedure requires LEO to take care of the safety of suspects in custody. Things like a suspect acting in distress is very much a sign that care needs to be taken. Chauvin is aware that Floyd is acting in distress yet doesn't follow MPD procedure and does so excessively. Is that just a mistake on the part of Chauvin or is that callousness? Given that he ignores the concerns of even other LEO that points to callousness and strengthens the manslaughter and more serious charges.
This whole "but it's possible the drugs killed him instead of the 9+ minutes of being choked out" is really straining the "reasonable" in reasonable doubt. Prosecution pretty credibly established that drugs didn't play a role in Floyd's death with Tobin's testimony, will see how the defense tries to rebut it with their own experts but so far there is really nothing reasonable about doubting cause of death here. The only thing reasonably in doubt right now is intent but even there, leaving your knee on someone's neck 3 minutes after you know the pulse is gone kind of makes it hard to argue that wasn't the outcome you wanted (at worst) /or expected (at best).
"Murder" is generally considered as intent to kill but that isn't necessary the case here. There are three charges that are brought against Chauvin and I think the prosecution is doing a pretty good job proving the 2nd degree manslaughter and 3rd degree murder charge. We have to remember that Noor was convicted on 3rd degree murder of killing Justine Damond even though there was no intent shown that LEO Noor had intended to kill her. That was another case tried in Hennepin County under the same laws. The 2nd degree murder charge is the tough one to prove but consider that in the Damond case that was a split second decision made by Noor. This is a situation that took place over half an hour with 9 minutes of that Chauvin on top of Floyd. According to MPD procedure and Chauvin's own training he should've know what was happening and that he shouldn't have been doing that. That points to that Chauvin himself wasn't in the right state of mind and very well could've been doing so because he wanted Floyd to die.
I'm listening to the trial right now and a prosecution medical expert is testifying right now about the lack of bruising including petechial hemorrhaging. He is reiterating that those things aren't always indicative of strangulation.
Certainly expert testimony that drugs had no effect on Floyd's death is devastating to that theory of the case. Unless the defense can produce some convincing counter evidence going the other direction, I would say that makes outright acquittal far less likely, as the defense would then turn entirely on Chauvin's behavior falling short of gross negligence. I would say intent to kill is still not apparent, but going off only the summaries provided here of recent testimony, a conviction now is much more likely.
So the doctor today, explained that what happened to Floyd would have killed a perfectly healthy person without drugs or heart condition. He pointed out that Chauvin's whole foot was off the ground and that meant all of his weight was on Floyd's neck. He testified the Chauvin and nothing else was responsible for Floyd's death. He pointed out many minutes and seconds after Floyd's last breath Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck. The doctor pointed how the movements from Floyd were to elevate his body to keep himself breathing because of what Chauvin was doing. It was a slam dunk witness. He never wavered and put into record that it was Chauvin and Chauvin alone that caused Floyd's death.
While I have disagreed with your interpretation of the evidence, I respect your willingness to look at it and discuss it, especially given that your opinion was less popular. I respect it. I wish there were more posters who disagree with me that had your critical thinking and willingness to engage.
Out of curiosity, for those hung up on the 'intent to kill' definition of murder, how is the bar for this normally set? The suspect has to be recorded on tape/video at some point stating that he intended to kill the victim? It seems like something as vague and open to interpretation as 'intent' would always be difficult to prove. Otherwise every murder case turns into, "No officer, I didn't intend to kill those people, just wound them."
I second what @FranchiseBlade and even though we differed this was a very productive and civil debate. All that said we still have yet to see the defense case. I strongly suspect it will follow what you argued with one exception. Based on defense questioning I suspect they will make an argument that Chauvin was distracted by the gathering crowd and felt threatened by it. That caused him to lose track of on how long he was on top of Floyd and not follow procedure.
Stephen Crowder demonstrated this yesterday, actually. He survived the knee restraint quite easily, as do 99.9% of people who it's applied to... (and it's not a "choke hold" - not even close). AND, it's what the police were trained to do... so how can you fault Chauvin for trying to fully subdue a drugged out, enormous man who was acting erratically and posing a danger to the community?
