Yep, even then. Likely means it would not be surprising. Likely means if I saw this 10 times, my answer would be right 8 times. Likely means if I picked this I would be right more often than wrong. What likely doesn't mean is certainly, to the exclusion of other possibilities, without a doubt, or anything else that doesn't leave a big gaping hole for the defense expert to drive through. I probably wouldn't put on my expert if he indicated to me that his opinion was that things likely happened the way I say. I want an expert that says, based on all the facts and circumstances, this is what happened. But doctor, isn't it possible that... anything is theoretically possible, but I don't consider that a realistic possibility, no. That is the language you are looking for from a prosecution expert. There is an official definition of reasonable doubt, but not just reasonable. Courts are going to say something along the lines of reached using logic, reason, and common sense. Ultimately, it will be whatever the jury can agree reasonable means, which is effectively whichever juror that is willing to hold out has the loosest definition of reasonable.
Thanx. Very good. So even in the most sure case with hard video evidence of premediated murder in cold blood I can easily find millions of people who can have "reasonable" (their reason) doubts. For example QAnons. That's why law isn't a science. All the "logic reason and common sense" are only relevant to the person and not absolute. Since there is not absolute definition it is only sophistries.
Well that would depend on the job description of the person providing the testimony. The coroner was in charge of determining the cause of death. He did. The attending physician was not in charge of determining the cause of death but his testimony adds support to that. So it doesn't strengthen the idea that it could be something else. The doctor's testimony only supports the conclusion of the coroner. We have three officers testifying that Chauvin's knee to the neck was in violation of police procedure at the time. We have two coroners and a physician who all beleive the cause death was caused by Chauvin. Yet you think it's reasonable to disregard all of that based on one detail in a report that reached a different conclusion?
I don't know where you are getting this one detail in a report thing. I posted above a whole list of evidence I would present as the defense in support of the theory that overdose is a reasonably possible cause of death.
Again you're the one who used that language repeatedly. The fact that you continue sounds a lot like "the lady doth protest too much situation." This is why I went through and restated what we know. The preponderance of the empirical evidence is heavily on the side of the prosecution. I see you keep on harping on the term "most likely" but even you acknowledge that basic logic is why that leads to that conclusion. The arguments you put forward are by definition weaker as they require assumption, or conjecture, if you prefer to overlook the counter empirical evidence. It can only succeed if you accept that it was coincidence that Floyd died of an OD at that particular moment and discount the fact that Chauvin was on top of him doing a dangerous technique. I will agree that if we are talking the realm of doubt yes that is possible and it is possible the jury acquits Chauvin. That doesn't mean that is what is most likely what happened. I find it interesting you bring up the Simpson case because yes Simpson was acquitted but most people consider that a big failure of justice and the not a matter of actually proving Simpson innocent but a very clever defense lawyer taking advantage of incompetent prosecutors and judge. Let me ask you this. Since OJ Simpson wasn't found guilty do you personally think he did the act? Except we've showed you how that technique works , showed you why Floyd could still be conscious and talking while the technique is on, and showed why petechiae or other damage might not show up. At this point you're simply denying the evidence. More conjecture now that you are conjecturing on that you know what was in Floyd's mind at the time or his thought process. And again as stated this technique works by causing pain to enforce compliance. We also know that Fentanyl is an opiod which is a pain killer. And honestly you're saying that an overdose of painkillers causes pain? Yes Floyd could've have a strain on his heart from preexisting conditions or drug use but if Chauvin's action's contributed to Floyd's death that would be manslaughter, at the minimum, especially given that we have multiple testimony that he acted excessively and against MPD policy. And again to fully acquit Chauvin you have to show that his actions had nothing to do with that but that it happened to be coincidental. Further the very paragraph above shows "it's the can't disprove a negative" You might as well put up invisible space laser. Understand the argument of raising possibilities for the purpose of reasonable doubt. The key term is here is "reasonable". What I'm explaining that is that it is unreasonable given how much evidence and basic logic is on the prosecution side.
The law definitely isn't a science but science and logic does play a role in the argument. There is a saying in legal circles, "If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound the law. If you don't have the law, pound the table." The facts are strongly against Chauvin but StupidMoniker is making the argument that Chauvin's defense is to pound the law by arguing about different standards of "reasonable" which are in his law. I'm not a lawyer and even if I was and was actually prosecuting Chauvin I wouldn't actually be using the same argument. The extended debate I'm having I'm debating more from the term of the philosophy and the nature of language and logic. That is why I acknowledge that Chauvin could be found acquitted. What I'm doing is point out not only the actual evidence that the real prosecutors are doing but also deconstructing the defense that StupidMoniker is arguing by showing that it is logically weaker as it is based upon coincidence and conjecture and he argues it using assumption. How the trial actually ends up my own feeling is that it ends up Chauvin found guilty of 3rd Degree murder but it is certainly possible he gets acquitted or there is a hung jury. As StupidMoniker noted the OJ Simpson was acquitted even though there was a preponderance of evidence against him.
Again that is "its impossible to disprove a negative" a very common logical fallacy. If we're talking logic, and I agree courts aren't always logical, the defense arguments as you've put up here are already logically much weaker. That is where I would say that it isn't "reasonable" but "unreasonable doubt".
Chauvin is complicit in premeditated 1st degree murder along with the dirty precinct and night club involved in an illicit criminal enterprise. Many locals, regional private investigators, and Floyd's family already know this. It's sad that the true full story of the matter isn't on full display because the Minneapolis Police Department is backed by the entire state of Minnesota. Hence why George Floyd's family is satisfied by the $27 million dollar settlement. Of course you got vultures like Al Sharpton that want a piece of that.
What evidence do you have that Chauvin, and/or Floyd were complicit in illicit criminal enterprises at the night club. Or that the Third Precinct and Chauvin was a "dirty precinct"? I knew both the night club that they worked and the Third Precinct was my precinct. There have been complaints about that precinct and the night club but nothing I have seen that would raise it to that level. As far as coverup by the State the state took over the prosecution of Chauvin, that's hardly the sign of a coverup. On the settlement that has much more to do that we all saw Chauvin with his knee on Floyd for 9+ minutes. Even if Chauvin get's off acquitted criminally, he, MPD, and the city of Minneapolis are very liable civilly and as we all should know civil standards are less than criminal standards for assignment of guilt. The city settled because losing a civil suit might be much costlier.
Do you have actual evidence? Seriously I'm not asking this as Clutchfans debate. I live in the neighborhood where the precinct was and El Nuevo Rodeo was. This is information that might actually be important.
The killing method was under the guise of "routine police work". The body language of the other cops when you study the footage is very revealing. They all thought they could get off on some kind infraction but it backfired and they got caught. Now, they must have lived well from perks to keep this "omerta" thing going during their time in a luxury cesspool.
Everything I said were indeed my own conjectures. I get Minnesota has a reputation and integrity to uphold as a family friendly state with a thousand lakes, the Mall of America and second largest state fair in the country. It's a united front, I get it, with sports team like Minnesota Twins, Vikings and Timberwolves.
Every time you repeat that I am basing my argument on an assumption, I am forced to correct you and say, "No, I was using a rhetorical device that asks the listener to temporarily make an assumption which is later shown to be unnecessary." You can feel however you want about it, but repeating the same cycle will never a) weaken the argument, or b) result in a change wherein my argument is somehow based on an assumption. The preponderance of evidence is not the standard. If you want to find what the most likely cause of death was, perhaps for a civil suit, that is fine and dandy. In order to convict someone, the people must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The arguments I put forward don't need to be stronger, they need to be strong enough to entertain a reasonable doubt. It succeeds if someone acknowledges that it is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility that Floyd dies of an OD sometime within the time period Chauvin was restraining him, and that the drugs, not Chauvin, caused his death. It does not requiring overlooking, discounting, setting aside, ignoring, hiding, obfuscating, camouflaging, obscuring, cordoning off, or doing anything else to the evidence besides reviewing it. Anything is possible. It is possible God smote him for his sins. It is REASONABLY POSSIBLE that he died of an OD. Trust me, when it comes to juries, ANYTHING is really possible. I am not concerned with what most likely happened. I already said pages ago that I thought the most likely thing was that Chauvin contributed to Floyd's death but did not intend to do so. Mark Garragos talks about this a lot, but most attorneys have tons of respect for Judge Ito and Marcia Clark. That was not her best work, but I would not say the judge or the prosecutors were incompetent. Yes. I don't even know if I would have found him not guilty as a juror. The doubt relied upon by the defense in that case was that the strongest evidence against Simpson was planted by the police, and that it was done so because Mark Fuhrman was racist. To me, that argument never made sense, no matter how many times Mark Furhman used the N-word. In my opinion, the case against OJ is much stronger than the case against Chauvin, and even then they couldn't even get a hung jury. No, I am showing that the evidence is consistent both with the technique being used with some amount of blood flow interruption and with no blood flow interruption. You are denying that there are multiple pieces of evidence that support more than one conclusion, even when it is obvious. If those signs of petechiae or other tissue damage were present, it would ONLY support the conclusion that blood flow was cut off. I am not say that the lack of those signs is 100% proof blood flow was not cut off, only that because those signs are absent, that conclusion is not excluded. If I said I am thinking of a person and it is one of: James Harden, Chris Paul, or Christian Wood, then I said the person is a guard, you would know it was either Harden or Paul, but if I said he led the league in scoring, then Paul would be excluded. What? I don't know how you come up with this stuff. We can all see on the video that he expresses pain and an inability to breathe before he is taken to the ground. I then expressly stated that we don't know what is in his mind or what his thought process is because his statements could be true or false. What was my conjecture of what was in his mind? I think having a heart attack is painful. I have never had one or seen one in person, but it tends to be depicted as someone grasping their chest and wincing. Only grossly negligent actions would amount to manslaughter, and only if it was specifically that which made it grossly negligent. If Floyd's health and drug use made it so that spiking adrenaline and elevated heart rate killed him, the fact that he was struggling against three officers because he refused to sit in the car would be the cause of his death. It would have to be specifically that the knee on his neck caused his death by constriction of the blood vessels in his neck for manslaughter to attach. If the police are chasing someone in their vehicle and the officer closes his eyes while he is driving, he is grossly negligent. If the defendant crashes his car and dies because the police are chasing him, but it had nothing to do with the officer closing his eyes, the suspect just missed a turn and ran into a tree, it doesn't matter that the officer was grossly negligent. This is the principle of causation. Incorrect. In order to fully acquit Chauvin, the people must have failed to prove any element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no burden on the defense to show anything. On possibility would be to show that there is a reasonable possibility that Floyd would have died at the same time absent any effect of Chauvin compressing the blood vessels in his neck. What I am explaining is that I disagree. Not only do I disagree with your conclusion, I disagree with your assertion of how much evidence is on the prosecution side. In fact, I would posit that most if not all of the evidence is consistent with a death by overdose and/or so called excited delerium, and that any evidence inconsistent with such a conclusion is opinion evidence that can legally be ignored by the jury or may be countered by defense experts.
