I am not attempting to reach the conclusion of what is most likely or most reasonable, I am trying to determine the extent of the set of all conclusions that fall into the category of reasonable and then determine if any of those conclusions require acquittal. We don't have to assume anything. I am trying to determine what evidence would look different if he died of an overdose at the same time there was a knee on his neck. My contention is that all of the evidence would look exactly the same.
Can you explain in multiple paragraphs for multiple future forum post pages about why you're wrong? Lets assume you're a lawyer assigned to give Chauvin the harshest punishment possible under the extent of the law.
So Chauvin acted against standard training protocol, ignored pleas to check on the victim's health, coroners have determined homicide from the officer to be the cause of death, there is video proving the victim wasn't a threat. I haven't seen any reasonable doubt to any of that.
Except “reasonable doubt” would mean that any doubt that was unreasonable should be ruled out as exculpatory. Therefore what is reasonable would be something that somehow gave a more compelling explanation than what is most likely. And again words matter and the words you’ve used repeatedly are “assumed” and “assumption” to make your argument. If we consider linguistic determinism then that is what has shaped your own thoughts on the argument.
No, this would be radically changing the standard of proof in criminal trials. In a civil trial, the plaintiff's case must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. In order for the defense to win, their alternative must be equally as likely or more than the plaintiff's case. You are arguing for a standard even lower than this, that the defense case must be more compelling than the prosecution's case. In a few areas of law, such as removing children from unfit parents, we have the clear and convincing standard of proof. "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (just because it was a convenient place to pull a good definition from). This standard would not require an alternate theory that is "more compelling than what is most likely", merely an alternative that shakes the firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. Beyond a reasonable doubt is even more stringent, the very highest standard of proof. With this standard, any reasonable doubt, however unlikely, is sufficient to require an acquittal. It is the standard presumed to be used by people in making their most important decisions. It does not mean proof beyond all doubt, because anything in life is subject to imaginary doubts, but rather a doubt grounded in reason. I just rephrased it in the line you quoted to not use the word assume (beyond saying not to assume anything). You are way too caught up in a rhetorical device. In a review of the evidence, what piece of evidence, if any, is inconsistent with an overdose death occurring during Chauvin's restraint of Floyd (ie, he could not have overdosed because piece of evidence X appears Y, whereas if he died of overdose it would appear Z). My contention is there is no evidence that eliminates the possibility of overdose as cause of death (not most likely, more likely, equally likely, or any other comparative term with any other cause of death, merely reasonably possible).
I will avoid again a long exposition on linguistic determinism, but it's a fact that you have depended on a rhetorical device to make your argument. If we talk about reading into intent the fact that you're spending so much time arguing you didn't do that shows that you actually recognize that this is an argument you feel necessary to counter. When you write "In order for the defense to win, their alternative must be equally as likely or more than the plaintiff's case" I will agree with you that something that is as equally likely would do for "reasonable doubt" that said though "compelling" when there is obvious if it was as equally likely. That it would have to be "more" would be the need for such though experiments / assumptions that you've been asking us to go through including in your post above to get around the direct empirical evidence. To reiterate. Would you agree with me that "unreasonable doubts" wouldn't qualify far acquittal? Therefore when there is a preponderance of empirical evidence one way, including a most likely explanation that a reasonable doubt would also be required to overcome that amount of evidence and and be very compelling.. To restate, 1. We know that Floyd died while Chauvin was on top of him. 2. We know that Chauvin used a technique that is dangerous and in a manner against MPD policy. (and although you did try to argue earlier the technique wasn't that dangerous I see you've backed off of that) 3. Floyd was expressing that he was in pain during that. 4. Granted again that Floyd had a large amount of drugs in his system. Most of that was Fentanyl which is a known painkiller. I'm not aware of meth countering the aneasthetic affect of fentanyl. The most likely explanation and the preponderance of the evidence is that Floyd died because of Chauvin's actions. While it is possible Floyd died of an OD at just that moment. That argument is one that is based on coincidence and conjecture that the timing works out just right. I've yet to see evidence presented regarding why that time would be more likely for an OD than other time. Possible <> reasonable unless there is a reason to say that it is.
Not you. Although I don't know why you're putting in so much effort trying to reason with StupidMoniker. It's verbal diarrhea to try and justify a cold blooded murder on camera. A shred of truth is all a liar has ever needed and he doesn't even have that.
The Chauvin trial resumes today. Here's what happened at the trial last week. It is day 6 of testimony at the Derek Chauvin trial. We're expecting the prosecution to call more witnesses. Here's a recap of what's happened so far at the trial: Day 1: Trial proceedings started with opening statements from the prosecution and defense. Prosecutors revealed that Chauvin was on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds — an update on the initially reported 8 minutes and 46 seconds. After opening statements, jurors heard from three witnesses, including a 911 dispatcher, an employee from a nearby gas station and a professional mixed martial arts fighter who stumbled upon the scene. Day 2: Six bystanders testified on the second day of Chauvin's criminal trial: a 9-year-old girl, three high school students, a mixed martial arts fighter and a Minneapolis firefighter. They described their feelings of horror and fear as they watched Floyd slowly die under Chauvin's knee. Day 3: The third day of Chauvin's trial featured testimony from several bystanders who interacted with Floyd as well as graphic excerpts of police body camera footage showing his arrest and final moments. In the videos, Floyd gasps that he's claustrophobic, repeatedly says he can't breathe and calls for his mother. Day 4: Floyd's girlfriend spoke about Floyd's struggles with opioid addiction, and several first responders said that Floyd appeared dead when they arrived on the scene. A former police shift supervisor testified that Chauvin's use of force should have ended earlier. The jury also heard Chauvin explain his version of what happened in a call captured on body-camera footage. Day 5: Two high-ranking Minneapolis police officers testified on Friday. Lt. Richard Zimmerman, who leads the Minneapolis Police's homicide unit, told the court that the use of force by Chauvin against Floyd was “totally unnecessary.” Zimmerman said the restraint should have “absolutely” stopped once Floyd was handcuffed and on the ground. Sgt. Jon Curtis Edwards described how he secured the crime scene and made contact with J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, who were the only two officers there. Edwards said he had his body camera activated when he arrived, but neither officer had their body camera on when he met them.
I'm putting the effort into sparring with StupidMoniker because he is a prosecutor and has been a defense attorney. From what I can see his arguments are very close to what Chauvin's attorneys are likely going to argue. This may not be surprising but I'm in several discussions like this on other forums but also in person with other people in Minnesota. This topic is probably the foremost topic on people's mind here. What happens in the court will have very direct impacts on what happens to this city and my neighborhood. It's actually helpful to have this type of debate with someone who is making cogent arguments based on his own reasoning and knowledge. Besides that work has been slow the last few weeks and I'm just that kind of b*stard that wastes time getting into protracted legal and philosophical debates online.
Turley https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/...ors-to-dismiss-george-floyd-autopsy-findings/ excerpt: By focusing the jury on the autopsy report, and asking them to effectively dismiss the conclusions of the only official report, the prosecutors increase the chances of a hung jury and even an acquittal. I previously expressed reservations about the push for murder charges because the case is better suited for a manslaughter case. If a jury feels the prosecutors have over-charged a case, it can produce a loss of credibility in the case. When you add an argument to dismiss the state’s own autopsy findings, you risk magnifying such skepticism or mistrust with jury members. more at the link
I am simply saying that you are incorrect when you say I am basing anything on an assumption. I have no issue with using a rhetorical device that asks people to temporarily assume something for the sake of argument. It is common to do so in the law and in speech generally. Doing so does not damage the point one is trying to make, nor does it transform an argument from one based on facts and logic to one based on assumptions. No one would answer my question, which was telling in and of itself. This is the preponderance of the evidence standard, the standard used in civil law. This is the lowest standard used in any sort of trial. Something that is equally likely would be way, way past reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence is the only standard in which you are allowed to attach numbers, in order for the plaintiff to win, their case must be 50% likely plus any additional amount. This makes no sense. Why would me asking someone to think about something change the standard of proof applied to a case. Yes. If I said a solar flare was focused through an ice lens left behind by a comet tail and reflected off of the side mirror of the patrol vehicle, shooting efffectively a laser beam through Floyd's heart, killing him, that would be an unreasonable doubt and should be rejected. No. Wrong. Incorrect. The different standards of proof are like different camps on the climb up a mountain. At base camp you have reasonable suspicion, then you get to probable cause, then to preponderance of the evidence, then to clear and convincing evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt is at the summit. At each stage along the way, more is required of the prosecuting party/plaintiff to win, and less is required of the defense to prevail. Down at base camp, for the defense to win (eg to show an investigatory stop was unlawful) assuming the prosecutor has made a prima facie case, the defense has to show that it is totally unreasonable that the officer suspected the defendant of a crime, that their behavior could only be viewed as innocent. Up at the summit it is the opposite. There, you don't need to provide an alternative that is more compelling than the prosecutions case, you only need raise a doubt that is founded upon evidence and reason, even if far less likely than the case put on by the prosecution. The OJ trial is a good example of this. The defense presented a theory that the police planted a bloody glove at the defendant's home that matched one found at the crime scene. Is it far more likely that OJ killed Brown and her boyfriend? Of course. The defense was able to convince all twelve jurors that it was reasonably possible that he was framed, however unlikely. Agreed. I think that Chauvin could have and possibly did take his weight off of Floyd's neck. I have never disagreed that cutting off blood flow to a person's brain for an extended period is dangerous (obviously), I have never contended that the technique you are talking about does that. I have said there is insufficient evidence to show to what degree Chauvin was cutting off blood flow to Floyd's brain, given a number of pieces of independent evidence (the amount of time Floyd remained conscious, the lack of petechiae, the lack of physical damage to Floyd's tissues, etc.) I discount anything said by Floyd as he was expressing pain, discomfort, an inability to breath, etc. long before Chauvin had him on the ground. If he was telling the truth, it lends credence to the theory of overdose, if he was lying, he lacks credibility. As we know for certain how much fentanyl he had in his system, either he was lying about the pain he felt, or the fentanyl was not having an anesthetic effect on the particular kind of pain effecting him. Neither of which is particularly relevant unless there is a study which says fentanyl blocks overdose pain but not blood vessel restriction pain. Most likley and preponderance are not the standard. It doesn't need to be more likely at that time than at any other time, but it could occur at that time because he had greater strain on his heart from struggling with the police. Reasonably possible is what we are looking for here. Why is it reasonably possible he died of an overdose? Because he was in a stressful situation (being arrested and potentially returning to prison) while pumped full of a lethal dose (per the ME report) of fentanyl and methamphetamine and he already had a weakened cardiovascular system. In addition, it is common for people to die of "excited delirium" while being taken into police custody, and Floyd was suffering from many of the signs and symptoms of excited delirium at the time of his arrest per the department training materials. Paranoia, statements of impending death, heightened strength, confusion, incoherence, etc. All of that adds up to yes, it would not be outside of the realm of reasonable possibility that he died from the drugs in combination with his medical condition. There is a reason they called for an ambulance before they even put him on the ground.
So on addition to two different medical examiners certifying that he died from Chauvin's knee to his neck we had the doctor also testify into evidence that lack of oxygen to the brain was the likely cause of death. Believing that Floyd died of a drug overdose while under Chauvin's knee is just getting more and more unreasonable everyday.
Given that we have two coroners and the attending physician attributing cause of death to something other than OD, it isn't reasonable. To hold on to one detail of the report while ignoring the conclusion of the report, the review of the report, the testimony of medical doctor who first treated Floyd, in addition to Chauvin's history, in addition to the testimony that Chauvin was acting contrary to his training only adds to how un reasonable it would be to have a doubt.
Not when it adds to the credibility of the conclusion of report which lists cause of death as homicide by Chauvin. Unreasonably clinging to a solitary mention of a detail in the report while ignoring the conclusion and mountains of other evidence simply isn't reasonable.
What is "reasonably" possible? Is there an official definition? Reason is on the eye of the beholder. What is reasonable for one is not reasonable for another even among experts with the same knowledge in their fied. The law isn't a person therefore what kind of reason does it have?
