penny piper wrote: » Chauvan will appeal but I doubt it will amount to anything....about 90% of appeal cases in america fail........the poor guy is doomed....
OMM 0000 wrote: » The court case proved he wasn't choked to death. You have to be a world class liar to pretend the fatal levels of fentanyl in his body are unrelated to his death.
Fandymo wrote: » I was responding to a poster who stated "I would under no circumstances slowly murder a person." I was trying to explain that there was no way to know how you would react. It is very easy to blame the police for every shooting from behind a computer screen.
OMM 0000 wrote: » No, my angle is he wasn't choked to death. You can absolutely make an argument he should have been convicted for manslaughter (criminally negligent) and IMO that would be a fair conviction, but pretending he chocked him to death (when the evidence proves he did not) so he gets done for murder... that is just insanity.
Boggles wrote: » You are familiar with the concept of context, yes?
Fandymo wrote: » Under. No. Circumstances. Not much nuance or context there.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » also, shooting somebody as a reaction to danger in the moment is not slowly murdering a person. It is not slow and it is not murder. Words have meanings.
partyguinness wrote: » Whether or not he choked to death was not the question. It is in fact very simple:Did Chauvin's actions cause the death of Floyd? Yes. Did Chauvin's act with all due care and diligence and in line with proper procedure? No Even his defence struggled to come up with any sort of credible defence. To say "Ah sure he was dying anyway/he would have died anyway." That just shows a gross ignorance of how criminal liability is attached. In fact, I am genuinely embarrassed for some of the posters here and the ill informed nonsense they are spewing. "Ah sure it was the fentanyl"...Jesus wept. I suppose Chauvin was just unlucky.
Fandymo wrote: » I don't think anyone is arguing the bolded points. However, the people arguing don't think Chauvin arrived thinking he was going to murder this perp. He was negligent and should have been found guilty of manslaughter, but the murder charges should have been not guilty.
Fandymo wrote: » What danger was there? They talk about it afterwards. He was unarmed and just having an argument with his friend, there had not even been a punch swung, just a verbal argument.
partyguinness wrote: » Did Chauvin set out to kill/murder Floyd? No, of course not. He was not charged with first degree murder. He was found guilty of "unintentional murder"...intention to kill or murder if you like was not needed. All the prosecution had to prove was that Chauvin applied unlawful force that caused bodily harm. His actions were unlawful because kneeling on a guys neck for 9 minutues ain't a part of cop training.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » are you still referring to the pastor who took part in a training exercise?
Oranage2 wrote: » But two medical coroners has put the death as asphyxiation. Guys that have years of medical study and practice. Not just some armchair YouTube experts. I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.
partyguinness wrote: » Whether or not he choked to death was not the question. It is in fact very simple: Did Chauvin's actions cause the death of Floyd? Yes. Did Chauvin's act with all due care and diligence and in line with proper procedure? No Even his defence struggled to come up with any sort of credible defence. To say "Ah sure he was dying anyway/he would have died anyway." That just shows a gross ignorance of how criminal liability is attached. In fact, I am genuinely embarrassed for some of the posters here and the ill informed nonsense they are spewing. "Ah sure it was the fentanyl"...Jesus wept. I suppose Chauvin was just unlucky.
OMM 0000 wrote: » No, the medical expert said it was not asphyxiation. Why are you making things up?
penny piper wrote: » Floyd's heart was enlarged.. (needing more oxygen than someone who was healthy).heart disease plus..blocked arteries..plus bp added to the restraint technique used caused his death. oh and a substanctial amount of drugs in his body.....
Fandymo wrote: » Yes
OMM 0000 wrote: » Do you understand what asphyxiation is?
osarusan wrote: » Still so many posters on here who see the word 'murder' and think it must mean that 'intentional killing', and use that misunderstanding to disagree with the verdict.
Tony EH wrote: » Mmmmm. There are some people on here that haven't the first clue about what they're talking about. Worse still, they haven't even bothered to make a cursory glance to see the details of what 2nd and 3rd degree murder constitute in the state in question. Yet they still feel the need to white knight for Chauvin and fall over themselves to make up the most flimsy and ridiculous of excuses for him.
partyguinness wrote: » The primary cause of death was restraint and compression of the neck as per the medical examiners. The underlying conditions were noted as is the norm when an autopsy is performed. Sometimes unknown medical conditions come to light during an autopsy. What the defence tried to do unsuccessfuly was to focus the attention away from the primary cause and onto the underlying cause. Asphyxiation is not expressly stated because asphyxiation does not leave any visible signs. If you kill someone by putting a bag over their head and take the bag away it was very very difficult if not impossible to show asphyxiation. Whereas if the body is left there with the bag around its head then asphyxiation will be taken into account. As stated in evidence, his heart condition and fentanyl did not cause the compression of his neck. When medical reports are prepared, context is key. All the information available is gathered and used to help piece together the circumstances. An autopsy is not taken in isolation and detached from the circumstances behond the discovery of the body.
Penn wrote: » Pretty sure the medical examiner would have checked that, taken it into consideration, and would know better than you. You can keep saying it's just your opinion, but your opinion is irrelevant compared to expert testimony under oath from an experienced, medical professional who actually examined the body.
Faugheen wrote: » Same few jump into any conversation where racism is involved, as if it doesn't actually exist and is just a figment of our imagination. Unless it's racism to white people that is.
OMM 0000 wrote: » Why are you lying? Dr. Baker [the prosecutor's medical expert] acknowledged to the defense that he saw no physical signs of asphyxiation.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/derek-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19-n1264442/ncrd1264535#liveBlogHeader He also admitted heart disease and drug use contributed to his death. But based on the video they think he was choked to death. So let's get this straight... there is no evidence of damage from choking... there is evidence of asphyxiation BEFORE the police put Floyd on the ground (Floyd repeatedly admits he is having problems breathing)... he has a fatal level of fentanyl in him which causes asphyxiation... yet we're somehow supposed to believe he died of choking. Surely it is beyond obvious this trial was political and Chauvin was going to be found guilty no matter that?
