nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Muahahaha

Officer Derek Chavin goes on trial today charged with the homicide of George Floyd, if found guilty he is facing up to 40 years in prison.

The prosecution is largely based on the 9 minute long video of Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyds neck. The defence is going to claim that Chavin did nothing outside of his police training and that Floyds death came about because of drugs in his system and an underlying heart condition. The official autopsy found that his death was a homicide.

Witnesses include a then 17 year old girl who filmed the video on her phone and a police dispatcher who watched events unfold live on CCTV and alerted her supervisor about his treatment.

Its unknown if Chavin himself will take the stand. The trial will also open up answers about the previous relationship between Floyd and Chavin- they both worked as security together for a bar in Minnesota. The trial itself is expected to last 4-5 weeks. The other three police officers involved in the incident will face trial themselves in August.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

OMM 0000

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Fentanyl overdose comes about from slowing the breathing and putting the person into a state of coma.. all testimonies in court from the experts they seen no evidence of an overdose occuring (even Fowler couldn't couldn't say it was an overdose).

This is the thing.

There is no evidence he was choked, we can't say for sure he died of an overdose (although we know 95% of people would die from the level of fentanyl he had in his blood).

What we know for sure is he required medical help (he said he can't breath before the kneeing started) but Chauvin chose to hold him on the ground until he died.

So Chauvin needed prison time, but this weird US-style extremism seems to have invaded Ireland, so many people here are pretending this was a racist killing, fentanyl had nothing to do with it (despite the evidence), and he was definitely choked to death (despite the lack of evidence).

How about people just be reasonable and admit the dude was overdosing and the piece of **** cop prevented him from getting help so he died.

OMM 0000

Mellor wrote: »

No I’m not mixing them up. They are different units. mg and ng/ml

Immediately with the misunderstanding

microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same thing.

Jesus Christ man, this is basic stuff, stop making a fool of yourself.

MeMen2_MoRi_

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is the thing.

There is no evidence he was choked, we can't say for sure he died of an overdose (although we know 95% of people would die from the level of fentanyl he had in his blood).

What we know for sure is he required medical help (he said he can't breath before the kneeing started) but Chauvin chose to hold him on the ground until he died.

So Chauvin needed prison time, but this weird US-style extremism seems to have invaded Ireland, so many people here are pretending this was a racist killing, fentanyl had nothing to do with it (despite the evidence), and he was definitely choked to death (despite the lack of evidence).

How about people just be reasonable and admit the dude was overdosing and the piece of **** cop prevented him from getting help so he died.

Cause he wasn't overdosing. Have you completely removed the fact that George was a regular drug user, that people who regularly use drugs build up a tolerance, for the data set you reference there's also the 5% that don't die, can we put George in that 5%? Or is it he's definitely In the 95%

I'm in camp of it wasn't racism.

Mellor

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Immediately with the misunderstanding

microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same thing.

Nobody mentioned microgram per litre in the thread
A 2mg fatal dose refers to the total amount administered. Not per ml of blood.
And mg stands for milligram not microgram. Microgram is ug.

Jesus Christ man, this is basic stuff, stop making a fool of yourself.

Haha. The absolute irony of this. I agree it’s simple basic stuff. You are mixing up simply letter. It’s nothing even chemistry but basic reading comprehension. Didn’t you claim to have a Phd above? Dubious.

Retr0gamer

Thanks for doing my hard for explaining that units are very important in science.

Also to note is that there's another clue in the title.

A death from fentanyl overdose.

While the science in the paper is sound, and they also got their units right unlike some hear, it's also a gross scientific fallacy to give a sweeping statement about lethal dose levels based on a single case. Even more so if you don't understand how units work.

OMM 0000

Mellor wrote: »

Nobody mentioned microgram per litre in the thread
A 2mg fatal dose refers to the total amount administered. Not per ml of blood.
And mg stands for milligram not microgram. Microgram is ug.

Haha. The absolute irony of this. I agree it’s simple basic stuff. You are mixing up simply letter. It’s nothing even chemistry but basic reading comprehension. Didn’t you claim to have a Phd above? Dubious.

Is this a joke?

You said this:

They are different units. mg and ng/ml

You were trying to imply I've mixed up the units.

But it's you who've mixed them up.

The paper I linked to is using micrograms per litre, which is the same as nanograms per millilitre.

This is deranged, you'll literally say anything to try to avoid admitting you're wrong. I shouldn't talk to you so I have to add you to my ignore list.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Thanks for doing my hard for explaining that units are very important in science.

Also to note is that there's another clue in the title.

A death from fentanyl overdose.

While the science in the paper is sound, and they also got their units right unlike some hear, it's also a gross scientific fallacy to give a sweeping statement about lethal dose levels based on a single case. Even more so if you don't understand how units work.

Micrograms per litre are the same as nanograms per millilitre.

Are you going to keep gaslighting everyone?

Page 186 of the paper I linked to clearly proves you are wrong, but instead of learning something new and showing a bit of decency, you have to gaslight. Shameful.

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The paper I linked to is using micrograms per litre, which is the same as nanograms per millilitre.

No it's not. You're 3 orders of magnitude off.

You are confusing milli with micro.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No it's not. You're 3 orders of magnitude off.

Again with the lying.

Here's a literal screenshot from the paper:

https://imgur.com/a/reBAJNT

micrograms per litre.

Yellow_Fern

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

OMM 0000

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

This is why I linked to a particular paper which goes through deaths and shows the dosage.

It's fascinating watching people here deny science because it disagrees with their belief system.

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Again with the lying.

Here's a literal screenshot from the paper:

https://imgur.com/a/reBAJNT

micrograms per litre.

You are just plain wrong. ml/L is 1ppm. ng/ml is 0.001 ppm.

That is undisputable fact.

Also thanks for the screenshot but there's absolutely no context there. ug/L of what. And from where? You need context. That's what units are for.

Mic 1972

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is why I linked to a particular paper which goes through deaths and shows the dosage.

It's fascinating watching people here deny science because it disagrees with their belief system.

it's the beauty of modern ideology.

Personal opinion matters more than evidence

ohnonotgmail

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

citing a fatal dose as 2mg is meaningless. the LD50 for fentanyl is 2.91mg/kg in rats, an oral LD50 of 18mg/kg in rats and 368mg/kg in mice. The LD50 for humans is unknown.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You are just plain wrong. ml/L is 1ppm. ng/ml is 0.001 ppm.

That is undisputable fact.

Also thanks for the screenshot but there's absolutely no context there. ug/L of what. And from where? You need context. That's what units are for.

Are you able to stop lying?

Here's two websites which convert microgram per litre to nanogram per millilitre:

https://www.convertunits.com/from/microgram+per+litre/to/nanogram+per+millilitre

http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ug_lng_ml.php

As you can see microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same.

I cannot believe you're now trying to pretend units of measurement mean nothing if we don't know what're being measured. Are you one of those people who thinks a ton of feathers is lighter than a ton of iron?

Retr0gamer

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

Taken orally or intraveneously. Also you won't find all of that in the blood. The liver will usually break it down over time and a some will be excreted by the kidneys and you'll therefore end up with a lot less in the blood. It's why levels in all three are important.

Also important to get the units right in them or you could be 1000 times off what you think it is.

OMM 0000

Mic 1972 wrote: »

it's the beauty of modern ideology.

Personal opinion matters more than evidence

They're literally jumping through hoops (or rather, gaslighting) to deny science.

But why? Why is it so difficult for them to accept Floyd was a serious drug addict who had a fatal amount of fentanyl in him? I feel like these people are acting like a christian extremist having a panic attack because someone suggested Jesus might have had sex every now and then.

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Are you able to stop lying?

Here's two websites which convert microgram per litre to nanogram per millilitre:

https://www.convertunits.com/from/microgram+per+litre/to/nanogram+per+millilitre

http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ug_lng_ml.php

As you can see microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same.

I cannot believe you're now trying to pretend units of measurement mean nothing if we don't know what're being measured. Are you one of those people who thinks a ton of feathers is lighter than a ton of iron?

You said milligrams. You're changing the goalposts not me.

And again, where are those values from and why is there such a massive range? Why is there nothing about other substances in the blood which are from medical evidence that is required to trigger a fatal response with low levels of fentanyl?

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You said milligrams. You're changing the goalposts not me.

And again, where are those values from and why is there such a massive range? Why is there nothing about other substances in the blood which are from medical evidence that is required to trigger a fatal response with low levels of fentanyl?

Again with the lying. How is this allowed?

I've never said milligram and I've consistently said micrograms.

OMM 000 wrote:

microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same thing.

OMM 000 wrote:

The paper I linked to is using micrograms per litre

OMM 000 wrote:

Micrograms per litre are the same as nanograms per millilitre.

OMM 000 wrote:

micrograms per litre.

OMM 000 wrote:

As you can see microgram per litre

OMM 000 wrote:

Here's two websites which convert microgram per litre to nanogram per millilitre

And where are the values from? I've repeated stated they're from a paper I linked to.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

citing a fatal dose as 2mg is meaningless. the LD50 for fentanyl is 2.91mg/kg in rats, an oral LD50 of 18mg/kg in rats and 368mg/kg in mice. The LD50 for humans is unknown.

Well it's about time we got some humans, put them in a lab and tested them to determine the LD50. :pac::pac::pac:

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well it's about time we got some humans, put them in a lab and tested them to determine the LD50. :pac::pac::pac:

I would be happy to suggest some test subjects.

OMM 0000

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well it's about time we got some humans, put them in a lab and tested them to determine the LD50. :pac::pac::pac:

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

BattleCorp

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

My comment was a joke.

LD stands for "Lethal Dose". LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The test process involves killing a lot of animals. I was joking about substituting people instead of animals.

Anyway, as has already been established, I've quite a juvenile sense of humour. Carry on.

OMM 0000

BattleCorp wrote: »

My comment was a joke.

LD stands for "Lethal Dose". LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The test process involves killing a lot of animals. I was joking about substituting people instead of animals.

Anyway, as has already been established, I've quite a juvenile sense of humour. Carry on.

Ah yeah, I knew you were joking. I know there are some oddballs here but I'm pretty sure no one wants to kill people. Pretty sure...

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

That paper is a tiny test group from 1987.

The coroner's report states that deaths have occurred at 3 ng/ml in the blood but if you look into that it's with other contributing factors, mostly a cocktail of other drugs. 38 ng/ml is stated as the median point where the patient loses consciousness. But not fatally.

That's a lot more modern take with 40 years more research behind it.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

That paper is a tiny test group from 1987.

The coroner's report states that deaths have occurred at 3 ng/ml in the blood but if you look into that it's with other contributing factors, mostly a cocktail of other drugs. 38 ng/ml is stated as the median point where the patient loses consciousness. But not fatally.

That's a lot more modern take with 40 years more research behind it.

More lies.

The paper is from 2012.

The test group in the study were recently deceased.

What's going on? Are you able to tell the truth at all?

xckjoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

Everyone's Google results will be different. What's the paper ref?

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

More lies.

The paper is from 2012.

The test group in the study were recently deceased.

What's going on? Are you able to tell the truth at all?

1987. Author EM Pare.

Or I'm looking at a different one.

Retr0gamer

Ok was looking at the wrong one but also looking at other papers.

Don't know where that value of the level of 11 ng/ml would kill 95% of people. It's not in there or is it because it's more than the levels found in 95% of the already dead people in the test?

Also if you read the paper it mentions that in nearly all cars there is a cocktail of drugs involved.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Don't know where that value of the level of 11 ng/ml would kill 95% of people.

As stated to you a few times, page 186.

You're either trolling or have some problems so I'm adding you to my ignore list now.