Editing the OP with updates could help control this.J_Daddy05 said:
Can we please save this thread for actual updates about the trial? I know it's a fine line between factual updates and inserting some personal opinion, but we're way over that line at this point.
Take the debate to a new thread please.
<insert obligatory smartass texags.com reply about off topic post about off topic posts here >J_Daddy05 said:
Can we please save this thread for actual updates about the trial? I know it's a fine line between factual updates and inserting some personal opinion, but we're way over that line at this point.
Take the debate to a new thread please.
He wasn't JUST on Fentanyl. He's also on meth (and caffeine and nicotine, if I recall correctly, 3 stimulants). Plus THC, another depressant. I watched snippets of the opening arguments, I believe I recall Floyd WAS falling asleep in the car prior to police arriving on the scene. But if he took another "hit" just as they start to arrest him, in order to avoid being caught with the evidence, it would take a while for him to start to slow down and for the full effects of the fentanyl to cause him to stop breathing, as it eventually did. I will stop arguing.2PacShakur said:I'll take the advice from experts on the subject. I've run some clinical programs but will leave it upon more expert opinion on the matter. From Washington Post:Kool said:2PacShakur said:The autopsy doesn't indicate that and that's not how fentanyl OD's work. The only person that concluded it was an overdose was Tucker Carlson.Dan Scott said:
To me it's so obvious he's not guilty. You can't find the guy guilty beyond doubt when there exists an autopsy indicating he died from overdose.
He's only guilty for being a dewsh and keeping his knee on the guy after it was clear he wasn't much of a threat anymore.
Perhaps you could educate us as to normal toxicology and autopsy findings of someone dying of a fentanyl overdose.If the police thought it was an overdose, they should have applied naloxone. Unless someone wants to say they further escalated the risk to Floyd's life by denying him a medication first responders carry.Quote:
The biggest problem for the defense argument is that events that evening don't fit a fentanyl overdose, experts said.
"I'm skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here," said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. "The sequence of events isn't characteristic of opioid overdose."
Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.
If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn't, or couldn't, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.
"It's just complete garbage to call it an overdose," said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, "a person is basically blue, unresponsive. It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes."
Others noted there is no evidence that police or emergency medical personnel who later arrived used the fast-acting opioid antidote naloxone on Floyd, most likely because they did not believe he was showing signs of an opioid overdose. Both carried the medication, with the United States in the midst of the worst drug epidemic in history. Naloxone can be administered by injection or nasal spray.
"Overdose deaths shouldn't occur in front of trained first responders" who arrive in time, Babu said.
FTR, if the police had done things more correctly, I would agree that it's all just an unfortunate event. I just haven't seen anything showing the police (primarily Chauvin) do anything to lower the risk to Floyd's life. I'm not a Floyd lover, I just believe if we place an enormous public trust on police to use lethal force to neutralize a threat, then they should also be held accountable for that public trust.
LOL. This will be a month long trial. Editing my OP for a few hundred pages won't solve anything. Just ignore the posters who are trolling.Waffledynamics said:Editing the OP with updates could help control this.J_Daddy05 said:
Can we please save this thread for actual updates about the trial? I know it's a fine line between factual updates and inserting some personal opinion, but we're way over that line at this point.
Take the debate to a new thread please.
THIS.DTP02 said:Cactus Jack said:
Huge team of prosecutors. Should be noted (although I wish it wasn't important) that Blackwell is black.
Began opening with what it means to be a police officer, quoting the slogan of the MPD: "to protect and serve with compassion." Discussed the oath he swore as an officer to not use unreasonable force.
Now going into the incident with Chauvin. Talking about timeline now, when Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe, saying his words slowed. Said there would be medical evidence of anoxic seizures.
Saying that Chauvin did not let up when it was noted Floyd didn't have a pulse. Said EMS looked for a pulse while Chauvin was still on his neck, and Chauvin was still on his neck even after the stretcher was next to him on the street.
I'm not watching so I don't know how it was delivered, but I am a little surprised the prosecution would bring in the "I can't breathe" statements from Floyd. This isn't a media narrative, but a courtroom.
"I can't breathe" should help the defense, given it was initially uttered before Chauvin even showed on scene.
I guess they're trying to pre-empt that defense strategy by introducing it in a way that frames it for the jury? I know as an outside observer who initially leaned toward hanging Chauvin from the highest tree, that learning "I can't breathe" was being twisted in the media narrative made me start to look at all of the evidence a lot more closely and cynically.
But she used her instincts...aggiehawg said:
So she's thinking that something is wrong because she kept looking up at this tower cam as she was also taking calls. So she called the Sergeant who is their supervisor and if the officers needed additional assistance or if use of force issue.
She couldn't be sure what was happening.
Magic City Wings said:
Or maybe it shoulda been a clue not to put your knee on his neck....
Magic City Wings said:
Or maybe it shoulda been a clue not to put your knee on his neck....
Magic City Wings said:
Or maybe it shoulda been a clue not to put your knee on his neck....
Magic City Wings said:
The defendant was in the back of a cop car restrained.
Magic City Wings said:DTP02 said:Magic City Wings said:
The defendant was in the back of a cop car restrained.
And then what happened?
Chauvin deduced to to perform execution by cop. For people that complain about the government so much, that could be unacceptable.
LinkQuote:
As a reminder of the actual criminal charges against Chauvin, and therefore what the prosecution has to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and what we'd expect them to focus on in their opening statement, I've shared the relevant portions of the criminal statutes below. It's worth noting that although two of the charges against Chauvin are labelled "murder" under Minnesota law, these are not murder charges in the traditional sense, in that they do not allege an intentional killing. (The second-degree murder charge specifically is what most states would call felony murder, predicted on assault in the third-degree.) All the charges against Chauvin allege only an unintentional killing, so not even the state prosecutors are arguing that Chauvin intentionally killed Floydthat this was literally a "racist police murder of a black suspect."
609.19. Murder in the second degree[url=http://xn--%20609-2ha.223%20assault%20in%20the%20third%20degree/] 609.223 Assault in the third degree[[/url]:Quote:
Subdivision 2. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;609.205. Manslaughter in the second degree:Quote:
Subdivision 1. Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 10,000, or both.609.195. Murder in the third degree:Quote:
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;Quote:
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
I don't think the defendant was ever in the car restrained. He was fighting it the entire time.Magic City Wings said:
The defendant was in the back of a cop car restrained.
aggiehawg said:
Reminder of the charges from Branca:LinkQuote:
As a reminder of the actual criminal charges against Chauvin, and therefore what the prosecution has to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and what we'd expect them to focus on in their opening statement, I've shared the relevant portions of the criminal statutes below. It's worth noting that although two of the charges against Chauvin are labelled "murder" under Minnesota law, these are not murder charges in the traditional sense, in that they do not allege an intentional killing. (The second-degree murder charge specifically is what most states would call felony murder, predicted on assault in the third-degree.) All the charges against Chauvin allege only an unintentional killing, so not even the state prosecutors are arguing that Chauvin intentionally killed Floydthat this was literally a "racist police murder of a black suspect."
609.19. Murder in the second degree[url=http://xn--%20609-2ha.223%20assault%20in%20the%20third%20degree/] 609.223 Assault in the third degree[[/url]:Quote:
Subdivision 2. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;609.205. Manslaughter in the second degree:Quote:
Subdivision 1. Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 10,000, or both.609.195. Murder in the third degree:Quote:
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $ 20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;Quote:
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
A is A said:
it just feels like the only hope the State has is to get Manslaughter 2...right?
All that intent language in Murder just seems like a massive stretch.
edit: not even close to a lawyer
Just don't use a $2 bill. Some twits think that they are counterfeit.Good Poster said:
I use real dollar bills when I purchase items and the cops have never been called on me. Amazing.
NewOldAg said:
The legal issue here has to be causation. Did the police cause the death? Yes = guilty, no = not guilty.
All three levels of murder have causation language. Not aggravation or contribution, but cause. It'll be interesting to see.
OldArmyBrent said:NewOldAg said:
The legal issue here has to be causation. Did the police cause the death? Yes = guilty, no = not guilty.
All three levels of murder have causation language. Not aggravation or contribution, but cause. It'll be interesting to see.
But manslaughter requires "culpable negligence." Seems like it wouldn't be culpable negligence if the guy was trained to do something a certain way because it was safer and then the suspect died. Then you're stuck with some form of a murder charge.
I agree. Unfortunately, I have 0 faith those jurors are only going to use facts.Maroon Dawn said:A is A said:
it just feels like the only hope the State has is to get Manslaughter 2...right?
All that intent language in Murder just seems like a massive stretch.
edit: not even close to a lawyer
Except that the police handbook lists this hold as a safe alternative that doesn't restrict an airway
So he chose a hold designed not to grievously injure the guy
The state has nothing but emotion on its side
A is A said:I agree. Unfortunately, I have 0 faith those jurors are only going to use facts.Maroon Dawn said:A is A said:
it just feels like the only hope the State has is to get Manslaughter 2...right?
All that intent language in Murder just seems like a massive stretch.
edit: not even close to a lawyer
Except that the police handbook lists this hold as a safe alternative that doesn't restrict an airway
So he chose a hold designed not to grievously injure the guy
The state has nothing but emotion on its side
