George Floyd case-latest developments

125,791 Views | 1866 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Bondag
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 2PacShakur • 9:43a, 3/9/21
AG
2PacShakur said:
2PacShakur said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
The applicable dangerous felony here is third-degree assault. (In many states, felony assault is not deemed to be a crime sufficiently independent of the victim's death to qualify for felony murder, but Minnesota does not apply that rule.) Third-degree assault is defined as any assault causing substantial bodily harm.
Autopsy found no such injuries.

Quote:
III. No life-threatening injuries identified

A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae

B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures

C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries

D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries

E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

3-A was literally the reason the EMS were initially called to the scene.
Also, your confusing substantial vs. life-threatening. (E: quoted the wrong one.)
Where is the autopsy report did the ME find what you consider to be "substantial bodily injury" then?

Confused.
Reply Quote
1
Ags77
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:45a, 3/9/21
AG
So what are the possible verdicts ? Guilty of murder 2, murder 3, manslaughter ? Of course a not gulity is possible, too.
Gigem
Reply Quote
Kool
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:48a, 3/9/21
AG
aggiehawg said:
2PacShakur said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
3-A was literally the reason the EMS were initially called to the scene.
What? Not following you. Petechiae is a specific type of artifact of strangulation.
Petechiae definition, doesn't have to do with strangulation. EMS was initially called due to the scrapes he received on his face and the call was elevated when they performed the restraint.
That is incorrect. He sustained a cut to his lip when he was thrashing around in the back of the squad car. That is what the rookie, Lane, told Chauvin on the body cam evidence.
This is getting silly. I decided yesterday to bow out from direct responses. Presence of petechiae is absolutely often related to a normal pathological finding in a strangulation, especially one which does not involve a complete collapse of the airway (no internal occlusion, no hyoid or thyroid cartilage fracture, etc.). When a person is strangled by external mechanism, the internal and external jugular veins (which are more superficial and MUCH more compressible than the carotid arteries) become blocked. Blood from the head is still trying to return to the heart for re-oxygenation. External compression causes back pressure in the venous system, eventually to the degree that blood will "extravasate" from the veins and capillary beds and leak into the tissues. This is the particular form of petechiae seen with a strangulation. Presence of petechiae does not absolutely indicate strangulation, nor does their absence rule out a strangulation.

Someone googling the definition of petechiae and not seeing a direct reference to strangulation....

There is a reason why they call them "expert witnesses". I am not claiming to be one here, but I would say that my knowledge goes a bit beyond the Google machine I find on the interwebs.

Thanks for your insight into all of this case, Hawg. I don't know why I find this case so interesting, but I do. I wish it were not so nuanced, because I fear that the public will not understand all of the medical and legal issues at play, and we will see Summer 2020 Redux. Probably not a good time to be a store owner, insurance company, or rational human being living in Minneapolis any time soon.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
10
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ags77 • 9:50a, 3/9/21
AG
Ags77 said:
So what are the possible verdicts ? Guilty of murder 2, murder 3, manslaughter ? Of course a not gulity is possible, too.
The murder three charge is not currently in the case*. Murder 2 (felony murder rule) or involuntary manslaughter, meaning no intent.

*That charge is the subject of a current appeal to the state supreme court.
Reply Quote
Ags77
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:51a, 3/9/21
AG
Thanks
Gigem
Reply Quote
Come Out Roll
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:53a, 3/9/21
AG
Kool/'hawg-
I really appreciate y'all's insightful/experienced comments on this thread...wish we had this much 'smarts' on other threads, but alas, I digress...
Keep'em comin'.....
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
2PacShakur
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kool • 9:56a, 3/9/21
AG
Kool said:
aggiehawg said:
2PacShakur said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
3-A was literally the reason the EMS were initially called to the scene.
What? Not following you. Petechiae is a specific type of artifact of strangulation.
Petechiae definition, doesn't have to do with strangulation. EMS was initially called due to the scrapes he received on his face and the call was elevated when they performed the restraint.
That is incorrect. He sustained a cut to his lip when he was thrashing around in the back of the squad car. That is what the rookie, Lane, told Chauvin on the body cam evidence.
This is getting silly. I decided yesterday to bow out from direct responses. Presence of petechiae is absolutely often related to a normal pathological finding in a strangulation, especially one which does not involve a complete collapse of the airway (no internal occlusion, no hyoid or thyroid cartilage fracture, etc.). When a person is strangled by external mechanism, the internal and external jugular veins (which are more superficial and MUCH more compressible than the carotid arteries) become blocked. Blood from the head is still trying to return to the heart for re-oxygenation. External compression causes back pressure in the venous system, eventually to the degree that blood will "extravasate" from the veins and capillary beds and leak into the tissues. This is the particular form of petechiae seen with a strangulation. Presence of petechiae does not absolutely indicate strangulation, nor does their absence rule out a strangulation.

Someone googling the definition of petechiae and not seeing a direct reference to strangulation....

There is a reason why they call them "expert witnesses". I am not claiming to be one here, but I would say that my knowledge goes a bit beyond the Google machine I find on the interwebs.

Thanks for your insight into all of this case, Hawg. I don't know why I find this case so interesting, but I do. I wish it were not so nuanced, because I fear that the public will not understand all of the medical and legal issues at play, and we will see Summer 2020 Redux. Probably not a good time to be a store owner, insurance company, or rational human being living in Minneapolis any time soon.
Thanks for elaborating but this is basically what I was saying, petechiae is petechiae. Don't need a strangulation as it's also caused by bug bites, and numerous other events.
Reply Quote
Come Out Roll
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56a, 3/9/21
AG
And Kool, the last paragraph on your latest post....
No truer words were ever spoken....
Reply Quote
3
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:02a, 3/9/21
AG
Surprised the judge did not let them rule out juror 1 for cause and made them use a strike
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kool • 10:09a, 3/9/21
AG
Quote:
Thanks for your insight into all of this case, Hawg. I don't know why I find this case so interesting, but I do. I wish it were not so nuanced, because I fear that the public will not understand all of the medical and legal issues at play, and we will see Summer 2020 Redux. Probably not a good time to be a store owner, insurance company, or rational human being living in Minneapolis any time soon.
It is an interesting case because the narrative told by the viral video was so outrageous from the start and like the snippets of video in the Rodney King incident, very misleading.

I immediately became intrigued a few days after his death when riots were starting, to hear the Hennepin County DA say he wasn't sure which charges may issue, and then added if any.

If any? That DA is seeing something we are not and the evidence is not adding up to him. By that time the DA had viewed the body cam evidence and received a prelim autopsy report from the ME, one without a manner of death finding as the tox and other lab results were still pending. I could only think that the examination of the body didn't reveal the physical injuries that the video suggested should have been evident.

Now part of that could be the slowness of bruising once the heart stops beating but obviously an experienced ME would take that into consideration. So what was the ME and the DA seeing that gave rise to the doubt? And a stated doubt by the DA no less while the city was burning? Not what I expected at all.

That got my spidey senses working.
Reply Quote
7
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Readzilla • 10:10a, 3/9/21
AG
Readzilla said:
Surprised the judge did not let them rule out juror 1 for cause and made them use a strike
I missed that. Defense was forced to use a strike? She couldn't read English! That's BS.
Reply Quote
3
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 10:14a, 3/9/21
AG
Judge said that it was not because of her english ability but that anyone who was not educated on court proceedings or expert matters would not be able to understand everything. But yeah total BS
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Readzilla • 10:22a, 3/9/21
AG
Readzilla said:
Judge said that it was not because of her english ability but that anyone who was not educated on court proceedings or expert matters would not be able to understand everything. But yeah total BS
While I generally agree that technical knowledge or to be more precise, lack thereof is insufficient cause but being able to read should be basic. There are going to be a lot of documents in this case and if she can't even understand the questionnaire, she sure as hell wouldn't understand even half of those.
Reply Quote
4
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:41a, 3/9/21
AG
Still on juror #2. Judge Cahill's hopes that they could get through 7 prospective jurors in the morning and 7 in the afternoon was overly optimistic. This is going very slowly.
Reply Quote
1
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 3/9/21
AG
Agree, even 4 and 4 at this pace would be a stretch. This juror seems decent though.
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43a, 3/9/21
AG
are the jurors being shown on TV at all or are they hidden?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Readzilla • 10:45a, 3/9/21
AG
Readzilla said:
Agree, even 4 and 4 at this pace would be a stretch. This juror seems decent though.
Yeah, he's open, has a scientific background and uses logic. Excellent juror prospect.

Bonus: He can read English!
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 10:48a, 3/9/21
AG
BQ_90 said:
are the jurors being shown on TV at all or are they hidden?
Hidden and they are only referred to by number no names.

Interestingly, Juror number 2 stated that when he drove into the courthouse yesterday, he felt reassured by all of the fortifications, not anxious. His view is that he would be protected should any unrest occurred.
Reply Quote
3
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 10:48a, 3/9/21
AG
Hidden
Reply Quote
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48a, 3/9/21
AG
Juror 2 will be on jury
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 10:50a, 3/9/21
AG
aggiehawg said:
BQ_90 said:
are the jurors being shown on TV at all or are they hidden?
Hidden and they are only referred to by number no names.

Interestingly, Juror number 2 stated that when he drove into the courthouse yesterday, he felt reassured by all of the fortifications, not anxious. His view is that he would be protected should any unrest occurred.
unrest won't be at the court house. It'll be at his front door. The jurors names will get leaked eventually
Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Readzilla • 10:52a, 3/9/21
AG
Readzilla said:
Juror 2 will be on jury
Good.

Notice Judge Cahill said the state supreme court mandated that the prosecution respond to the defense petition for review on the third degree murder charge by 5:30 today. So they are expediting the matter.
Reply Quote
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 10:55a, 3/9/21
AG
Commentary is pretty sus of him being a shadow juror. Has not seen the video, but went to the location to see it for himself?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Readzilla • 11:01a, 3/9/21
AG
Readzilla said:
Commentary is pretty sus of him being a shadow juror
Crossed my mind too at one point but so early in this process and not knowing what the remaining sh**show will be, he was articulate at least. Will it come back to haunt them?

I'm not sure I agree that forcing the defense to use their strike against Juror #1 rises to reversible error, though, as one commenter suggested. Maybe Minnesota law allows for that? IDK.

Defense counsel Nelson will need to pick it up and move faster, though.
Reply Quote
1
DallasAg 94
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 11:13a, 3/9/21
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
schwack schwack
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Readzilla • 11:13a, 3/9/21
AG
Quote:
went to the location to see it for himself?
Yeah. This was strange.

Do you think one of the questions asked on the form was if they had attended any of the protests? I'm betting this guy did....
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:15a, 3/9/21
AG
Juror #3 is up. Female.

ETA: She sounds young, mid-twenties perhaps?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schwack schwack • 11:15a, 3/9/21
AG
I highly doubt that it would not be a question. Can not imagine Nelson not bringing it up if he said he has been to one. He probably put no
Reply Quote
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:19a, 3/9/21
AG
Potential Juror #3 sounds like a younger (20's) white female. "I can try to be impartial but no promises" needs to be struck out ASAP
Reply Quote
3
IndividualFreedom
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20a, 3/9/21
The writers of Bull are taking notes.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to schwack schwack • 11:23a, 3/9/21
AG
schwack schwack said:
Quote:
went to the location to see it for himself?
Yeah. This was strange.

Do you think one of the questions asked on the form was if they had attended any of the protests? I'm betting this guy did....
The questionnaire is like 14 pages long and specifically asks about attendance at any protest related to George Floyd. Obviously, the questionnaire was written by a jury consultant. And indeed this morning when going through the introductions of counsel present for the state, one was a jury consultant.

But Juror #3 admitted she has strong opinions about this case and likely could not be impartial.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 3/9/21
AG
Buh-bye Juror #3.
Reply Quote
1
Readzilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 3/9/21
AG
Juror 3 was struck out
Reply Quote
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:27a, 3/9/21
I'm still here and staying clear of anything north of Eagan, where I'm staying. **** that mess.

I don't really have the time to watch local news. but I have heard about violence.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Reply Quote
1
schwack schwack
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:28a, 3/9/21
AG
So that seemed like a giant waste of time by the prosecutor on #3. They had to know the Judge was a no-go on her already but were they hoping to point out some redeeming factor that would then cause the defense to use a strike?
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.