I will leave it at that but let the record from your earliest posts here show how much you rely on that rhetorical device. Again as even you stated earlier this argument does take setting aside the obvious evidence of Chauvin with his knee on Floyd for more than 9 minutes. Again this is a matter of a "reasonable" doubt. If the evidence doesn't shows that a possibility is reasonable then it should be ruled out, which you agreed to. The evidence isn't saying that he died of an OD isn't possible just that it isn't reasonable that it would happen in that particular time. Just to add I got some more info from a former Judo student who is an ER Doctor. He told me that the time it takes of Fentanyl to take effect is 2-5 minutes. Floyd was LE custody for about half an hour. So for him to have OD'ed at that moment from Fentanyl. Then he would've somehow ingested Fentanyl during that time. That blows a further hole in the timing argument. Good. Then you essentially agree with me. I don't believe Chauvin intended to kill Floyd either which is why I don't fully support the Second degree murder charge. Neither the third degree or 2nd degree manslaughter charge require that Chauvin actually had intended to kill Floyd. For the third degree is that he acted with such callous disregard with a depraved mind to Floyd's safety to lead to Floyd's death. The manslaughter charge requires that he acted with severe negligence to lead to Floyd's death. I will defer to your knowledge of the reputation of the figures involved but as you acknowledge it's not exactly a good example of a proper carrying out of justice. There's already been lengthy explanation of how the technique works and what signs you may or may not see. Further you're just considering just one very narrow part of evidence. To use your example it would just saying you're only thinking about a guard. The further evidence provided by the other LEO and experts of how that technique can kill is what narrows it down. You said he discount anything that Floyd said as credible, which would mean his protestations of being in pain are lies. Then you say well since he was saying it earlier that means he could've OD'ed. To be fair you did frame it as an either / or but this is conjecturing on when and if he's telling the truth at what time. Now I will agree that he was saying he was in pain earlier I don't have to conjecture on whether he is truthful or not. First off being handcuffed and shoved into a car isn't physically pleasant. Floyd was known to be claustrophobic and as someone who does have mild claustrophobia, yes it's very unpleasant. Those situations don't nullify that Chauvin killed him because he didn't die while in the car, he died outside of the car. Further given that Floyd was showing signs of physical distress earlier that is more evidence that Chauvin acted callously in regard to Floyd's safety. Having not just a suspect in custody but one who was showing signs of distress he didn't follow procedure and take the technique off and move him into a recovery position. That point has been reinforced today and previous days by other LEO. And is that the case for Fentanyl? I've never had it but I know that it used for the treatment of pain and as anesthetic for certain medical procedures. So your argument is really is that a painkiller really causes pain. Also as above stated as above I provided evidence that the timing doesn't work with the argument. That is why the testimony of the other LEO is devastating as it shows that Chauvin was not following MPD procedure, his training and even the other LEO on scene. That is gross negligence. As stated the technique Chauvin used isn't just about constriction of the blood vessels, it also causes pain and stress on the body. That is why MPD policy even without the knee on the neck (an MPD trainer today testified that it shouldn't be on the neck) is still that it shouldn't be kept on and the suspect should be turned into a recovery position. So you don't actually agree then with the most logical conclusion that Chauvin was the cause (intentional or not) of Floyd's death. I will agree that the defense is under no obligation to do anything. Legally you're right but I don't believe practically you believe that. You wouldn't bother with this whole long debate including putting forward a counter theory if you did.
The record shall so reflect. No, it specifically sets aside no evidence. I posit that it is in fact reasonable. It is reasonable because it is consistent with all of the evidence. Time to take effect, or time to die of overdose. I don't know that those are equal things. Certainly if a doctor testified that for Floyd to die of overdose with the level of fentanyl in his system (bearing in mind all of the other evidence: other drugs, in a struggle with multiple officers, poor cardiovascular health, etc.), it would require that he ingest the fentanyl during a period that he was on video not ingesting the fentanyl that would eliminate that as a possible cause of death. I am aware of the charges and what they mean. It may be a fair example of what reasonable doubt means to various jurors though. I am considering all of the evidence. None of the evidence provided by the other LEO and experts of how that technique can kill eliminates other causes of death, for which there is evidence as established previously, from being a reasonable possibility. I framed it as an either or precisely because it does not require conjecture on my part as to what was in his head. If he was in pain and unable to breath while sitting on the edge of a car seat, then his being in pain and unable to breath may or may not have been caused by anything Chauvin was doing. All of the conditions that were present to cause him pain and difficulty breathing when sitting on the edge of the seat were still present when he was on the ground. No, that is a twisting of my argument to make it seem silly. If you drink too much water, you can get water intoxication, but it would be silly to say that water is toxic. It is the having too much that is the problem. If you have the proper amount of a painkiller, it will reduce your pain, I have never overdosed on multiple drugs while struggling with cops, so I can't say for certain whether or not pain is symptomatic of overdose in that situation. I do know that people with excited delirium which has been associated with drug related deaths in custody may exhibit some or all of the following signs: 1. Agitation, screaming, extreme fear response, or panic 2. Violence, assault, or aggression towards others 3. Suspicion of impending death. Typical comments include, ‘‘I’m dying,’’ ‘‘Please save me,’’ or ‘‘Don’t kill me’’ 4. Incoherence or disorganized speech. Grunting or animal sounds 5. Clothing removal inappropriate for ambient temperature or complete nudity 6. Disorientation or hallucinations 7. Mania, paranoia, anxiety, or avoidance behavior 8. Constant motion or hyperactivity Does any of that look familiar from the Floyd video? Maybe 1, 3, 4, 7, 8? The timing argument is interesting, but more would be needed than fentanyl in its normal use as a painkiller has that general onset time. I don't necessarily agree. Minnesota courts have interpreted gross negligence to mean very great negligence and without even scant care. I would say the officers all exhibited more than scant care. I covered the evidence of care above when discussing what evidence I considered contrary to the notion that Chauvin didn't care if Floyd lived or died. Like reasonableness, this is one of those things where the definitions are insufficient to come to a bright line rule and it will generally come down to the fact finder to make a judgment call (the jury in this case). I would say a jury finding that gross negligence was not displayed would not be overturned. A wedgie causes pain and stress on the body, but I don't think they would be trying this case if Floyd died while he was getting a wedgie. There is no way they try this case if his knee was on Floyd's shoulder/back. That is the Tony Timpa case where no charges were filed. It is also the Elijah McClain case, no charges filed. No. I disagree with your conclusion that death caused by a combination of drugs, poor cardiovascular health, and struggling with the police is an unreasonable possibility. I think it is more likely that it was all of that in combination with Chauvin's actions. I do not think the evidence supports a conviction, because I think there is small but reasonable possibility that Chauvin was not the cause of death. If you are not the cause of death, you cannot be convicted of homicide (outside of the felony murder rule or accomplice liability, which would not apply here). I'm not sure what you believe I practically believe or don't believe. I legally and practically believe that there is a reasonable possibility that Floyd died of a combination of drugs, poor cardiovascular health, and struggling with the police leading to heart failure. I also legally and practically believe that the job of the defense is not to present something that is more likely than the prosecution's theory of the case, but rather, show the jury a way in which they could find one or more elements of the charged offenses is subject to a reasonable doubt.
I will respond to @StupidMoniker' latest when I have the time in the meantime sharing this. This testimony is devastating showing that Chauvin didn't act in per not just MPD policy but what is considered reasonable use of force for many LEO. It gives a lot of strength to that Chauvin acted callously and with a depraved mind regarding Floyd's safety for the 3rd degree charge. If the prosecution can tie this to intent that Chauvin knew that this could lead to Floyd's death and did so deliberately that will make the 2nd degree charge. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/...p6BmUSATBSh6ATpHt26YEiBaPjkkft2TVj4KSz3LEHTeY Chauvin trial: MPD instructor says cops aren't trained to use knee on neck Tuesday's proceedings have ended for the day Brandt Williams, Riham Feshir, Jon Collins and Matt Sepic Minneapolis April 6, 2021 5:15 a.m. A key part of Derek Chauvin’s murder trial defense is that the Minneapolis officer’s use of force against Floyd last May was appropriate and in line with department policy. But high-ranking Minneapolis police leaders — including Chief Medaria Arradondo — have spent the past few days testifying that simply isn’t so. On Tuesday, a Minneapolis use-of-force instructor testified that officers aren't trained to use their legs or knees on somebody's neck, while another police official told jurors that Chauvin received extensive training in how to defuse tense situations. Prosecutors showed Lt. Johnny Mercil, a use-of-force instructor, a photo of Chauvin with his knee on Floyd’s neck and asked him if it is something Minneapolis police officers are trained to do. Mercil said Chauvin was using force — but that it’s not a technique he has trained officers to use. Mercil added that officers are told that when possible, they should use the least amount of force necessary to control someone because it reduces the risk of injury to both the subject and the officer. Mercil also said the head, neck and sternum are particularly vulnerable to strikes or pressure. Officers are made aware of that during training, he said. Earlier, Sgt. Ker Yang, who is in charge of crisis intervention training, said that four years before Floyd's death, Chauvin took a 40-hour course on crisis intervention that included training on how to recognize people in crisis and how to use de-escalation techniques to calm them down. Yang said officers are taught to make critical decisions in dealing with people in crisis, including those suffering mental problems or the effects of drug use, and then de-escalate the situation. Prosecutor Steve Schleicher said records show that Chauvin attended a 40-hour course on the method in 2016. “When we talk about fast-evolving situations ... a lot of the time we have the time to slow things down and reevaluate and reassess and go through this model,” Yang said. Under questioning from defense attorney Eric Nelson, Yang testified that people watching an arrest may also be in crisis and that officers have to take in the situation around them as well. Nelson has consistently asked police witnesses about the possible threats posed by observers. It is part of his narrative that the crowd gathered at the scene posed a threat and that Chauvin's actions were consistent with training. Judge signals he'll limit questioning of Floyd friend Court proceedings began Tuesday with a Zoom appearance by Morries Hall, a friend of Floyd who was with him in the car as police approached. The judge indicated that he'll limit Hall’s testimony. A toxicology test turned up fentanyl in Floyd's blood, and investigators found drugs in the car. Floyd's girlfriend Courteney Ross testified earlier in the trial that Hall had provided drugs to Floyd in the past. "If there were to be a future third-degree murder charge, and Mr. Hall was charged with being involved in this drug activity that had caused Mr. Floyd to pass away due to an overdose, him even being in that car incriminates him in terms of behaviors of Mr. Floyd, what he observed, when he observed it," Adrienne Cousins, Hall’s attorney, told the court. In Minnesota there have been a few high-profile cases over the past five years involving people charged with third-degree murder for selling drugs to people who overdose and die. Cousins said her client plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Cahill said he'd likely limit questioning of Hall to his observations of Floyd on May 25, the night Floyd was killed while in police custody. The judge has asked the defense to propose what questions they would put to Hall under oath and have them ready Thursday. Hall can talk to his attorney first about the questions and then they will discuss again outside of the jury later. More at link.
I am looking forward to @rocketsjudoka and @StupidMoniker dual appearances as expert witnesses, and I'm kind of not kidding.
Any truth to the rumor that Ivanka hopes to run for his spot? Any Congressional district that would have this bozo would probably be strong for her..
So @StupidMoniker if GF had not been on any drugs, would your argument shift to GF's heart condition caused GFs death? You may have answered this in a previous post, but missed it with all the long paragraphs you guys are writing.
Listening to an NPR piece regarding "excited delirium". This defense in this case has brought this up including in this very thread. It has also been brought up in several cases to justify LE use of force. The guest is pointing out that "excited delirium" isn't recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association. There is a lot of debate whether this is an actual condition. Here is more info from the trial. https://www.kare11.com/article/news...clain/89-cab0d1d5-fb9e-40af-87d4-dadd37073a89 Derek Chauvin trial: What is 'excited delirium'? An officer at the scene when Chauvin knelt on George Floyd's neck for more than 9 minutes expressed concern about "excited delirium." But what does the term mean? MINNEAPOLIS — The term "excited delirium" has been discussed and referenced by multiple witnesses testifying in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. According to transcript of body camera video from the more than 9 minutes that Chauvin knelt on George Floyd's neck, an officer at the scene said, "I'm concerned about excited delirium or whatever." But what does the term mean, and why is there so much controversy around it? Excited delirium is characterized by "agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death, often in the pre-hospital care setting," a 2011 study conducted by doctors at the University of California and University of Southern California found. "It's typically associated with the use of drugs that alter dopamine processing, hyperthermia, and, most notably, sometimes with the death of the affected person in the custody of law enforcement." There isn't a general consensus in the medical community defining the term, the New York Times reported, citing a 2018 review of scientific literature. It's controversial in part because its diagnosis isn't recognized by the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association, Bloomberg Law noted. "Law enforcement officers nationwide are routinely taught that 'excited delirium' is a condition characterized by the abrupt onset of aggression and distress, typically in the setting of illicit substance use, often culminating in sudden death. However, this 'diagnosis' is not recognized by the vast majority of medical professionals," the Brookings Institute think tank wrote in a 2020 report. Despite this, the term has been referenced in a number of cases involving Black men in police custody, including the recent death of 23-year-old Elijah McClain in Aurora, Colorado. The term was first used in 1985 by forensic pathologist Charles Wetli to "explain a series of sudden deaths in cocaine users, occurring primarily in police custody," the Brooking Institute stated. He also used the same term to "explain the deaths of 32 Black women occurring in Miami over the 1980s." Civil rights activists have long argued that excited delirium is used as a "get-out-of-jail-free card for police brutality," according to Bloomberg Law. The Brookings Institute said it has become "a justification for police aggression that is unwarranted." RELATED: Experts say more changes to police training could come after Chauvin trial In the trial of Derek Chauvin, a doctor who tried to resuscitate Floyd on May 25, 2020, referenced the term in his testimony Monday. Dr. Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld said Floyd was in cardiac arrest when he arrived at the Hennepin County Medical Center. He also testified that Floyd was in PEA, or pulseless electrical activity, which he said can suggest hypoxia or low oxygen. Dr. Langenfeld walked the jury through his thought process to better understand Floyd's condition. He said he considered acidosis, in particular "excited delirium," but said there was no report that Floyd was extremely sweaty or agitated, which are considered symptoms. Dr. Langenfeld called the diagnosis of excited delirium "controversial," and said he did not believe that was what Floyd was experiencing when he arrived at the hospital. Officer Nicole Mackenzie, who provides first aid education for the Minneapolis Police Department, also testified about excited delirium, but she was dismissed early due to a legal issue regarding the matter. She's expected to be called back during a different part of the trial.
Getting back to this. Am going to cut out some of this response that isn't furthering the debate. And as far as I can tell none of the video shows him ingesting any drugs while on video. Also in today's testimony there was a back and forth regarding a prosecution witness on whether Floyd said "I ate too much drugs" While the witness, who wasn't on scene, was asked if by Defense from a short clip if Floyd said "I ate too much drugs" he said yes. In follow up when showed a longer clip said it sounded like he said "I ain't take no drugs." For me personally It's not clear what Floyd said. We agree this is the crux of it regarding what is "reasonable". To be honest though the standards sound like they are moving the goal post. First it was that the technique done by Chauvin doesn't appear to show physical damage and it was explained why it wouldn't, then it was that it wasn't that dangerous and it was explained that yes it is dangerous and yes Chauvin is putting his weight down on Floyd, and now it's back to there doesn't appear to be physical damage. According to MPD procedure and training a suspect showing physical distress needed to be treated with care in regard to their safety. This was stated by Chauvin's own superiors several times. Accepting that Floyd was in physical distress meant that Chauvin should have taken more care regarding use of this technique. He should've moved Floyd over to a recovery position which he never does. This is further evidence that Chauvin acted with either severe negligence which would be manslaughter, callous indifference to Floyd's safety which would be 3rd degree murder, or actual intent to kill Floyd which would be 2nd degree murder. I posted some more info about "excited delirium" and it is controversial but also even the doctor that declared Floyd dead stated he didn't think Floyd was suffering from excited delirium. Also you write "drug related deaths" and listed some signs. Are those general "drug related deaths" or are those specific to fentanyl? Granted Floyd did have meth in his system but most of the drug in his system was fentanyl which is an opiod. This is why the testimony of other LEO is so devastating. In most use of force cases LEO have generally supported the use of force as reasonable. This was the case in the Philando Castille death which was also in Minnesota. Yes because the technique done is far more serious but more than that was done for an extended period of time. I was going to suggest you can try this yourself but at the risk to your safety would say don't try to get a wedgie and then recreate what Chauvin did for the amount of time he did. And how long was Timpa or McClain held down using that technique? The issue isn't so much that any use of the technique is excessive and dangerous it is the amount of time that it put on and that at no point did Chauvin move Floyd to a recovery position. He even dismisses LEO Lane's concern and suggestion to move Floyd. Any of those factors you cite and the evidence you cite adds to that Chauvin should've treated Floyd differently per MPD procedure and even his own training. The argument that Floyd had drugs in his system, was acting strangely and expressing distress does show a possibility of death by OD but this again is countered that Chauvin being aware of at least two of those conditions should've done things differently. Obviously you believe that Chauvin could be acquitted my point was that if you actually believe that there is no burden on the defense why spend so much time debating this and even providing counter theories? That is why I said "practically". Yes, legally the defense could just rest and not present a case. I don't believe they will and I'm guessing if you were the defense attorney you wouldn't do that either.
Another piece of info that makes the defense case harder. I'm listening to a legal analyst for a local news channel say that prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin's actions were the sole cause of death but that they were substantial cause of death. What this means is that argument that that death caused by a combination of drugs, poor cardiovascular health, and struggling with the police is an unreasonable possibility is even narrower.
I don't think he would be dead if he had not been on any drugs. The information in the ME report regarding his heart and arteries was far more limited and there was no statement that they were in a lethal condition, so that would be a much tougher argument to make. A defense attorney would still make the argument, but I don't think that would rise to the level of reasonable doubt if somehow everything related to the drugs was removed but everything else happened exactly the same. I just don't see any of that being a possibility though. I don't think he ends up on the ground if he isn't on the drugs, he just sits in the car while they investigate the counterfeit bill and then they cite and release him. Yes, so for whatever amount of time we have a continuous view of Floyd from at least one camera, we would know he did not take any drugs for at least that amount of time. I have no knowledge of time from ingestion to death by overdose from fentanyl, fentanyl combined with methamphetamine, or fentanyl combined with methamphetamine and cannabis. I have no knowledge if that time period is variable generally, or variable based on outside factors. So, as I said, the drug timing argument is interesting to me, and could be incredibly inculpatory, but I would need more information to give it any weight one way or the other. I wish I had time to watch the trial, but it just isn't there, so I have to get by on what I read. I would like to be able to analyze all of the testimony. Such is life. Hopefully I can at least get some clips in over the weekend, like I watched some of the off duty firefighter and the MMA guy. The issue is that no piece or combination of pieces of the evidence rule out alternative causes of death. I am at no point trying to say that there is insufficient evidence that Chauvin compressing Floyd's neck is a possible cause of death. As you have said, it is recognized as a dangerous technique, it may be done in such a way that it is dangerous but leaves no physical damage, etc. I am just pointing out that the very same evidence either supports or does not eliminate overdose as a cause of death. That is the point of bringing up physical damage. Not that Chauvin could not be the cause of death because there is no physical damage, I agree he could be. What I am saying is if there was physical damage, that would serve to eliminate the reasonable possibility of overdose. If his spinal cord was severed, or his windpipe was crushed, it would be impossible to say the drugs did that. With shortness of breath, hypoxia, and heart failure, those are signs that can be attributed to either potential cause of death. That is a case for general negligence. Chauvin had a duty of care that was not met. I think it would be very tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin had a callous indifference to Floyd's safety, for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. To me, it is laughable to even consider that he had an intent to kill Floyd. This veteran cop with two medals for valor who has arrested, I am certain, hundreds if not thousands of people decides that on this day, on camera and in front of a dozen plus witnesses, he is going to attempt to kill this one suspect, but before making the attempt he is going to call for an ambulance Code 3, just to give himself a hard time limit because it wouldn't be challenging enough otherwise. All this with no motive? Because Floyd wouldn't sit in the car? The numbered list of signs I gave were specifically signs of excited delirium that I pulled off a bing search. Excited delirium is itself tied to heavy drug use, but I don't think it is limited to fentanyl. I don't know what effect, if any, the interaction between the amount of meth and the amount of fentanyl in Floyd's system would be, nor have I heard or read anything about that specifically. I do recognize some of the symptoms as also occurring in meth use, but could not tell you how the amount of meth in Floyd's system compares to the meth users in whom I have seen those signs (because they were not dead and did not have an autopsy report). None of the testimony I have seen has been particularly devastating, but that has been very limited. I will take your word for it that you found it devastating. I have seen a snippet of cross examination from the Chief and the Use of Force Expert and I thought it was fairly effective defense cross. My point is, pain causation is not generally speaking a risk of death. Stress on a generally healthy person's body doesn't generally create a risk of death. continued...
Timpa was held down with weight on his shoulder/back for over 13 minutes. Elijah McClain it is harder to say because there is no steady angle, it moves around a lot. Sometimes he appears to be on his side, much of the time you cannot see him at all because of the lighting. The cops are holding him for about 20 minutes or so, but I can't tell in what position for how long. I don't think that counters it at all. If Floyd died of overdose, Chauvin is not guilty. Period. You cannot convict a police officer of a crime if the subject he is arresting dies of a drug overdose. Oh, I get you. Burden is a legal term of art. Presenting a defense is not about the burden. The defense bears no burden, period (outside of affirmative defenses, which are not relevant here). You present a defense to try to illustrate for the jury that element or those elements of the charges (if any) where the prosecution has failed to meet their burden. This is done through cross examination of the people's witnesses, presentation of defense witness and evidence, and argument. Argument is not evidence, but can be critical in directing the jury in how to view the evidence. So you provide counter theories to show that while the prosecution has presented x, y, and z, related to the possibility of death by knee to neck, they have failed to show that death by overdose is not a reasonable possibility (for example). That is what I meant by the defense has no burden. We get many potential jurors whose view of the law is that the prosecution puts on their case, the defense puts on their case, and whichever is more compelling wins. That is why the focus of the defense has to be so much on eliminating that line of thinking and hammering that the defendant is presumed innocent, the people must prove every element of every charge beyond a reasonable doubt and that part of that burden is eliminating every reasonably possible alternative. If the defense can present a reasonably possible alternative explanation on a single element, not more likely than the prosecution theory, not even particularly likely generally, just reasonably possible, then acquittal is required. Edit: Geez, now I am putting out two parters. Like Star Trek TNG. If I get to three parters like DS9, somebody stop me.
You (some random guy on the Internet with no medical knowledge who never examined the body) don't think he would be dead if he didn't have any drugs. Multiple MEs concluded he is dead because of Chauvin's actions. See the difference?
Were any of them asked if he would be dead if he had no drugs in his system? Were they asked their opinion on what effect the drugs in his system may have had on his behavior vis-a-vis resisting being put in the car to begin with? I think the MEs are addressing a totally different question than I was.
George Floyd Died Of Oxygen Deprivation Caused By Derek Chauvin’s Restraint, Lung Expert Testifies https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemima...t-pulmonary-expert-testifies/?sh=74e20b3ea453
