Well they've taken a big hit since Trump left office but I don't think they actually want riots!
Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
Well they've taken a big hit since Trump left office but I don't think they actually want riots!
Well it doesn't hurt them, so why not?
The part where the defense attorney was asking about the breakdown of meth in his system and the expert stepped in it big time for the prosecution explaining the amphetamine also had an effect. The way the attorney picked it up just made me laugh.
Read some transcripts this morning, apparently he had a "prescription level" of Meth in his system, or not enough to cause him to really have any problems, according to the prosecution witness.
I'm not sure this makes sense, it seems clear to me from the bodycam footage that George Floyd was absolutely high as a kite when the officers approached and tried to arrest him, high to the point where he barely knew what was even going on. Saying that the drugs in his system "are irrelevant" doesn't add up.
I'm not sure this makes sense, it seems clear to me from the bodycam footage that George Floyd was absolutely high as a kite when the officers approached and tried to arrest him, high to the point where he barely knew what was even going on. Saying that the drugs in his system "are irrelevant" doesn't add up.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,646
A prescription level of methadone, replacing heroin would still get you high as a kite...
The problem is the corporate media have created a fictional reality that it was a slam dunk case of cold blooded murder by a racist cop, which like many stories they've manufactured in the past was never challenged by facts and truths, aside from on alternative media which in a lot of cases gets suppressed and censored.
It's like the Nick Sandmann case, most mainstream media viewers still think the guy is some evil racist but he is now a millionaire through suing corporate media for defamation, their stories about him were fake news but it fed into their narrative that pro-Trump people are bad so they probaly see it as money well spent. Then you had the whole Russia collusion narrative for years on end with politicians like Adam Schiff coming onto corporate media claiming to have seen evidence, shame he never showed any of it to the Mueller investigation.
The corporate media are creating echo chambers by pushing propaganda and shielding their viewers from the truth.
The Legacy Medias Wall-of-Propaganda Strategy
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1RSYT5Bo5fe2/
They will manufacture riots whichever way it goes, if he is convicted it'll be evidence of systematic racism in the police and if he is cleared it'll be evidence of systematic racism in the courts.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
So I just saw a bit on yesterdays so called experts and one that really stood out as complete BS was the "expert on breathing", he clearly went on the notion that DC had his knee on GFs neck using most of his body weight on the neck which was the sole reason he couldn't breathe and ultimately resulted in loss of life.
Now I know from experience in BJJ that even a small amount of pressure on the neck, specially front or back is enough to hamper your ability to breathe, and therefor speak, we all know throughout the ordeal, GF was able to talk and even shout. His images were also selected in a manner that make it look far worse than it was. Removing context from the situation completely.
Now I know from experience in BJJ that even a small amount of pressure on the neck, specially front or back is enough to hamper your ability to breathe, and therefor speak, we all know throughout the ordeal, GF was able to talk and even shout. His images were also selected in a manner that make it look far worse than it was. Removing context from the situation completely.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Burned any 5G towers lately?
It doesn't have to add up. The defence needs to prove Chauvin's innocence beyond all doubt. All the prosecution needs to do is establish any degree of doubt (even if it's a very poor match with reality) in order to maintain the very strongly established narrative of guilt that has been and continues to be so heavily promoted by the media. For an example, look at the BBC reporting on the case. They're publishing only the prosecution arguments and doing so uncritically.
For once, I find myself wholly agreeing with mmj_uk (in post 1188 of this thread - https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/posts/34704879/). I'll add that I think it's not solely the fault of the corporate media. They both follow and lead. They're often magnifying stories created by other people. The corporate media's motives are a mixture of political and financial, so they're more likely to spot and exploit an existing trend than to wholly create one themself and risk being unpopular. Being unpopular doesn't maximise profits for corporate media. The Nick Sandmann case mmj_uk refers to is a good example of that and of the extent and extremism of the problem. Famous people were publically advocating torturing people to death for the heinous crime of standing still while white and hardly any of them faced any consequences for doing so.
I think they'll be magnifying and worsening riots (and racism in general) rather than completely manufacturing it.
Agent provocateurs turn up everywhere, how else will the state ensure their draconian laws are justified?
Even a whole protest may be manufactured with a few well placed nudges nowadays, such is the power of social media that people will happily believe they weren't manipulated into it, it was their idea after all.
People are predictable when they're in groups and so making a protest turn into a riot is just a matter of lobbing the first stone (figuratively speaking).
Even a whole protest may be manufactured with a few well placed nudges nowadays, such is the power of social media that people will happily believe they weren't manipulated into it, it was their idea after all.
People are predictable when they're in groups and so making a protest turn into a riot is just a matter of lobbing the first stone (figuratively speaking).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Between posting on Donald.win... sorry its now Patriot.win.
To be honest, I haven't really followed any of the media hysteria - I'm simply interested in reading the testimony, then making my own mind up based on the evidence, rather than hysteria. So to be honest, I'm not really bothered about the media, just the evidence.
With the evidence I've seen so far, I don't think it's clear cut either way. The expert testimony from yesterday, was pretty good - it's easy to see, how that sort of restraint could cause death, the people giving the testimony were highly experienced experts in their field, simply casting their testimony aside would be arrogant, stupid and counter productive.
For example, it's clear that the defence's case is centered around the notion that the cause of death was drugs not Chauvin. However there are problems here. It would seem that a fentanyl overdose would cause an individual to simply "slow down" to the point where they eventually become totally unresponsive, essentially asleep - before their breathing gives way. This was part of the expert testimony, and is also backed up in the literature (that I've read, albeit in a limited laymans way)
The evidence from the bodycam and witnesses shows that George Floyd was clearly awake - although being obviously high, his behaviour was quite distant from that of somebody on the verge of death from fentanyl, I think this is a big problem for the defence. If it can be proven that the cocktail of Meth+fentanyl could cause such a reaction, then so be it - but I haven't seen that yet.
I don't think it's a case that he's obviously not guilty, and is simply going to be found guilty because the media are having a meltdown, I think it's a lot more complex than that. I also think Chauvin probably does bear some responsibility here. Whether or not it's murder I'm unsure, but it would seem that he did die at the hands of the police, the police do have a duty of care when it comes to holding somebody in custody, so absolving Chauvin of guilt entirely is going to be very difficult here. To frame it a different way - if the police had not have turned up, would Floyd still have died?
I'm personally, undecided so far - I want to hear more of the evidence and I also want to see the defence expert witnesses and their testimony, especially surrounding the drugs, as there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies.
I'm not sure I'd share that level of pessimism.
The idea that the Jury have spent their time glued to the media for a year, to the point that they've made up their minds and are incapable of properly considering any evidence, seems rather extreme and plays into a narrative that is a bit too extreme and one-sided for me.
I mean you might be right, I guess we'll have to wait and see..
I have. Not from this case, but from a spate of deaths of famous people a couple of decades ago from a combo of cocaine and heroin. I kept reading about how the combo of opiod and stimulant is a bad one, so I read up on it a bit. The gist of the relevant bit is that the stimulant can offset the effect of the opiod that would otherwise be fatal. If the stimulant wears off enough before the opiod, the person dies quickly from a sudden onset of the fatal effects of the opiod that were being held at bay by the stimulant.
The two different forms of heart disease George Floyd had are also relevant.
So do I. My point was that he's presumed guilty and the media continues to preach his guilt and that therefore it's the defence that has to prove innocence beyond doubt rather than the prosecution that has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It's also a political case, which matters a lot.
Impossible to say. The combination of drugs and diseases would definitely kill some people. But not all people. It's impossible to be sure in any individual case of overdose (even without the additional factor of relevant diseases) unless the doses are so high there's no way anyone could possibly have survived.
To frame it another different way - were Chauvin's actions in breach of the training he'd received? We know that the restraint technique he used was taught to police as a non-lethal technique. He did something he was trained to do, which he was explicitly told was non-lethal and which had been used many times without causing death - does the responsibility lie with him or with his training?
Murder requires intent to kill. What makes you think it's possible that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd? What evidence have you seen that leads you to be unsure about that intent? I haven't seen any.
What I'm unsure about is not an action but an inaction - not removing the restraint sooner.
Well, I think the law here is that when somebody is in the custody of the police, the police have a duty of care over the detainee - whether or not the specific restraint could, would, may, or may not be lethal is a side issue, I think it could be argued and probably has been demonstrated that the police failed in their duty of care here, to some degree or another.
Well Derek Chauvin faces three charges, second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter.
Based on what I've seen so far;
Second degree murder.
I don't think Derek Chauvin directed intended on killing George Floyd, do I don't think he's guilty (based on what I've seen so far) of second degree.
Third degree murder.
Third degree is a funny one, because it requires the presence of a weird thing known as "depraved mind" or the knowledge that he knew his actions were so serious they could kill somebody. In order to find him guilty here, you'd have to show that Chauvin knew his actions could kill, was aware of what he was doing - and carried on anyway with disregard for life. I actually think it's more likely Chauvin was negligent and didn't know how serious things were until it was too late.. I'd likely find him not guilty here, but I'd remain open to changing my mind if the evidence points that way.
Second degree manslaughter.
I think he'll probably be found guilty here.
In the final analysis, it's clear George Floyd died at the hands of the police, he was dead when the paramedics arrived - so I think it could and has been demonstrated that the police, including Derek Chauvin were likely negligent in the care of George Floyd, and that negligence led to his death. Aggrevated by the fact that Chauvin continued to apply the restraint for over nine minutes, and after George Floyd had stopped responding.
You could argue that the fact he was high on drugs exasperated the situation and made his death more likely, but that doesn't absolve the police of their duty of care.
Last edited:
I think the main focus for them is actually that Chauvin was allowed to do what he did (at least to a point) and that there is some leniency that can be applied here to a police officer making an arrest and having to use force vs say an ordinary person doing the same - wouldn't be reasonable for the store clerks for example.
Essentially Chavin probably has gone too far but from the defence perspective, they can try to show that in going too far, in the heat of the moment etc.. that didn't constitute felony assault etc...
that as a primary argument is perhaps better than just trying to go with placing it all on the victim. The drugs is obviously a key secondary argument here though and in itself can generate sufficient reasonable doubt - that only requires one juror to have reasonable doubt and have enough conviction to hold that position/not be pressured or swayed by the others and the defence can get a mistrial.
Yes I'd agree with that.
The defence can and almost certainly will show the angry crowd of people, throwing insults at the police and becoming unruly, that it might have distracted the officers and made things worse, or words to that effect. There's a number of things they can do here to get the jury to see it from the perspective of the police, as well as the drugs - in terms of reasonable doubt.
- Status