Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder how many of the people suggesting this trial is needless, that his guilt is "obvious", would be singing from the same hymn sheet if it was them or their family in the dock.

Then I'm sure they'd want all the facts of the case to be presented, not just the media's or the prosecution's version.
 
dowie said:
If you'd paid attention to the cross-examination of that very expert yesterday you'd understand that "homicide" referred to there is a medical opinion/conclusion as he clarified himself under cross-examination, it isn't a legal opinion and it certainly does not in itself suggest murder, that is a massive misunderstanding on your part.

But I guess yet again we see another uninformed person jumping into the thread to drop in some ad hominems.

It is rather silly to pop into a thread and just throw silly attacks like that at others when you don't understand the basics yourself.



I'm glad someone else understands this. It would be great to see other (intelligent or informed) views but so far I've just seen rather naive posts by people who seek to jump in and vent a little.
Click to expand...


This is meaningless nonsenses. As a medical examiner, he can only provide hid expert analysis of the cause of death which was consistent with homicide. Whether thst counts as guilty of murder is up to the Jury to decide.
 
Minusorange said:
On one the news channels I was watching it, they were saying the defence might actually call the prosecutions witnesses as witnesses for their own due to their answers during questioning
Click to expand...

I did find the part of the cross examination interesting where this witness said that it would have been ok for chauvin to rock up and taser GF.
 
D.P. said:
This is meaningless nonsenses. As a medical examiner, he can only provide hid expert analysis of the cause of death which was consistent with homicide. Whether thst counts as guilty of murder is up to the Jury to decide.
Click to expand...

No it is pointing out a distinction that your post lacked as you'd conflated a homicide finding by a medical examiner with your claim that it was an expert suggesting it was murder:

D.P. said:
Except if you have followed the trial using unbiased sources you would realize the opinions of the actual experts suggest it is murder:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-georgefloyd-idUSKBN2BW26K
Click to expand...

A finding of "homicide" by the medical examiner doesn't suggest that it is murder, you've conflated different things. Me pointing that out to you because you don't understand that clearly isn't "meaningless nonsense".

The meaning of my post is quite clear and unlikely yours it isn't nonsense either, it's just highlighting a basic fact that people ought to be aware of re: this case if commenting on it.

This basic fact was highlighted by the medical examiner himself under cross-examination yesterday for anyone who watched and paid attention to it.
 
If GF had to be arrested for passing a bad check and his heart was in such bad shape that the stress of being arrested would kill him, it would be ruled a "homicide". If the police said the words "you are under arrest." and GF went into cardiac arrest, the testimony that GF's heart "couldn't take it" would still apply as would the "homicide" label since the act of arresting GF triggered the heart attack.

The label doesn't require that the police do something "wrong".

This might also explain the "I can't breath." statements made BEFORE he was even on the ground. He was on drugs and had a serious heart condition. It's not heard to see how the stress alone from just being arrested could trigger issues with his heart and breathing. (and kill him)
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
A finding of "homicide" by the medical examiner doesn't suggest that it is murder, you've conflated different things. Me pointing that out to you because you don't understand that clearly isn't "meaningless nonsense".
Click to expand...


How dare you let these facts interfere with the narrative.

Shame on you.
 
StriderX said:
But his heart wasn't damaged, so how was it his heart?
Click to expand...
Quoted from earlier in the thread:

"If you found Mr Floyd dead in his residence, alone, without any police, drugs or other circumstances, what would you rule to be the cause of death" and her answer was "due to his heart disease"

He had something like 75% to 90% restriction. He was in bad shape. It could well be that his heart couldn't handle the combined stress of the drugs and being arrested in any way.
 
Twinz said:
If GF had to be arrested for passing a bad check and his heart was in such bad shape that the stress of being arrested would kill him, it would be ruled a "homicide". If the police said the words "you are under arrest." and GF went into cardiac arrest, the testimony that GF's heart "couldn't take it" would still apply as would the "homicide" label since the act of arresting GF triggered the heart attack.

The label doesn't require that the police do something "wrong".

This might also explain the "I can't breath." statements made BEFORE he was even on the ground. He was on drugs and had a serious heart condition. It's not heard to see how the stress alone from just being arrested could trigger issues with his heart and breathing. (and kill him)
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right or logical at all. And if that's how the law works then the law is an ass
 
StriderX said:
But his heart wasn't damaged, so how was it his heart?
Click to expand...

His heart doesn't need to be damaged in order to have a cardiac arrest. The arteries supplying it were significantly obstructed, it was enlarged and he suffered from high blood pressure - in the 2019 arrest he was told by a paramedic he could die - in that arrest, his blood pressure was noted to be very high after he'd consumed drugs during a traffic stop and he was then taken to hospital.
 
weringo said:
The chief medical examiner's testimony yesterday was interesting.

I did however think the defence missed a fairly obvious question in relation to his classification of the death which could have created some reasonable doubt. Presumably undertaking an autopsy is not an exact science and where there are contributing factors there always a chance that those contributing factors are in fact the sole cause of the death. He explained that if he is not sure the "undetermined" catagory is used and gave the example of a drug overdose which could be either accidental or suicide where it can be impossible to know one way or another. I would have asked that where there is more than one possible cause for the death what threshold likelihood of one does he apply for selecting one catagory over "undertermined". I have no idea what he would say whether that is 51%, 75%, 90%, 99% or what but it would have been interesting to find out. Maybe there's a legal reason such a question isn't permitted.
Click to expand...

Lawyers are generally averse to asking questions in court that they don't already know the answer to. Maybe that was the reason.
 
dowie said:
His heart doesn't need to be damaged in order to have a cardiac arrest. The arteries supplying it were significantly obstructed, it was enlarged and he suffered from high blood pressure - in the 2019 arrest he was told by a paramedic he could die - in that arrest, his blood pressure was noted to be very high after he'd consumed drugs during a traffic stop and he was then taken to hospital.
Click to expand...

That information didn't make it into a headline that I have seen either. Shocking.
 
stuman said:
you know you are allowed to change your mind right?

Would you want an all black jury? Because you can’t trust any white people?
Click to expand...
Of course but unless someone shows me a video putting him in a recovery position I cannot undo via wordplays what I have seen in the videos.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/23/8818...iscrimination-charges-over-guarding-derek-cha

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Does anyone know why the chauvin previous 17 convictions were ruled inadmissible by the judge? Chauvin got previous history of doing the same compression and making them unconscious.
 
Angilion said:
Lawyers are generally averse to asking questions in court that they don't already know the answer to. Maybe that was the reason.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. I wonder if the defence has a comparable expert witness who they can ask the question to. It wouldn't be a strong as coming out the medical examiner's mouth but it would still bring out the prevailing industry practice
 
StriderX said:
But his heart wasn't damaged, so how was it his heart?
Click to expand...

The testimony was that his heart wasn't damaged by externally imposed shortage of oxygen. Very different meaning to his heart not being damaged. Also, a person can die of heart failure without physical damage to the heart until decay sets in after they're already dead. While hearts are mechanical pumps, they're electrically controlled. If the electrical system goes wrong, the heart will malfunction or stop functioning entirely. As an aside, that's what the famous "CLEAR!" electrocution paddles are for. They're not for restarting a stopped heart. They're for stopping a heart that's beating incorrectly so that (hopefully) the body will restart it in the correct rhythm. It's basically a (very) hard reboot of the cardiac system.

His heart was enlarged (which is arguably a form of damage in this context) and the arteries leading to it were heavily blocked (which is arguably a form of damage in this context). Hypertensive heart disease and severe arteriosclerotic heart disease. The latter could have killed him at any time.

Opiods, stimulants and especially both combined will increase the chance of death too, particularly in someone with hypertensive heart disease and severe arteriosclerotic heart disease.

I'd like to know why the medical examiner, who noted those things and testified to them in court, chose to rule the cause of death homicide rather than unknown. Given three possible causes of death, why chose one of them?
 
pallys said:
. . .
Does anyone know why the chauvin previous 17 convictions were ruled inadmissible by the judge?
. . .
Click to expand...
Of what was Chauvin convicted 17 times previously :confused:

I suspect that the Judge wants to ensure that there are no grounds for an appeal in the event that Chauvin is convicted of killing a detained man.
 
Can't believe there are still people in this thread arguing that George Floyd was a victim of racism. When a white person is killed (see Tony Timpa) no one cares, but when a black person is killed in the same way people start crying racism and rioting despite all evidence to the contrary.

It looks like the prosecution fell apart this week.
 
stockhausen said:
Of what was Chauvin convicted 17 times previously :confused:

I suspect that the Judge wants to ensure that there are no grounds for an appeal in the event that Chauvin is convicted of killing a detained man.
Click to expand...

They were not convictions they were complaints vastly different things.

17 complaints in a 20 year career, of which only 2 resulted in disciplinary action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom