aginlakeway said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

So you tell me, literally, to ignore my own eyes and ears, discount a ME report that doesn't automatically acquit Chauvin, and then tell me I'm not "worthy of your attention" anymore. This will be up there in the holier-than-thou rankings for f16, but sure.

---

He won't be a witness.

---

Correct, using it as it's one of the few things we have now. Waiting for a few key testimonies such as 1) MPD training officer, 2) MPD Police Chief, 3) Various medical experts. Every testimony so far has been on the periphery and slowly getting closer.

2PacShakur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

So you tell me, literally, to ignore my own eyes and ears, discount a ME report that doesn't automatically acquit Chauvin, and then tell me I'm not "worthy of your attention" anymore. This will be up there in the holier-than-thou rankings for f16, but sure.

---

He won't be a witness.

---

Correct, using it as it's one of the few things we have now. Waiting for a few key testimonies such as 1) MPD training officer, 2) MPD Police Chief, 3) Various medical experts. Every testimony so far has been on the periphery and slowly getting closer.

---

Getting closer to what? You realize the state BETTER be in good shape at the end of its testimony, right?

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

2PacShakur said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

Quote:

---

cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law-enforcement subdual restraint, and neck compression

---

Why are the last five words constantly ignored?

---

Because the ME was pressured to add them and said so in a 302 by the FBI??

---

Link to that story? I'm interested to hear that.

---

First post.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3185635/replies

---

The very first post has selective editing of the 302. Why don't you post the whole part where the ME explained why he couldn't answer the "but for" clause? It's on page 6 at the very top.

Also, don't see where it was said that he was pressured to add the extra words.

E: to also add, the use of the word "prior" to being on the ground was a description of activities happening prior to Floyd being on the ground. Within the 302, he specifically states he cannot determine when he became critically ill but didn't appear to be critically ill at several points. The only time we actually know when Floyd's heart stopped (more or less) is when they couldn't detect a pulse at 6:30 mins into the hold.

---

It sounded to me like the part about police restraint is because his heart was in such shape that it couldn't take the stress.

Kind of like someone with an enlarged heart and with significant blockages having a heart attack with the added stress of shoveling snow.

fka ftc said:

---

Breaking

I found the Floyd murder weapon for sale on the internet. Cannot believe these are not illegal and are still being sold.

If you cannot understand anatomy of the neck and how it is nearly impossible, certainly unlike that the position of Chauvins knee would not reasonable be expected to restrict airflow, then you also should not be on the jury. Similar to the baseball bat refeeent above. Hell, press your fist as hard as you can against the side of your neck.

I only point this out as it entirely possible for something to "look horrible" for "damning" and be completely misleading.

https://www.lehmans.com/product/shoulder-yoke/#

Now whether the whole altercation resulted in him having a cardiopulmonary event from drugs, stress, COVID, yes but that would be on him.

Will be interesting when the get to the prosecutors expert witnesses.

---

aggiehawg, you presciently provided information about excited delirium earlier today during a recess or waiting for it to start.

I remember this coming out when the body cams/transcripts came out several months after the peaceful protests occurred and thinking that was a gamechanger.

Basically, one of the officers, I cant remember which, noted that they needed to subdue the subject because he was worried about "excited delirium, or whatever".

If I recall correctly, he was a newish law enforcement officer (<1 or 2years -- fresh out of training?) which is probably why he knew about excited delirium protocols in the first place and why Chauvin, who had been in law enforcement since 2001 -- 19 years, may or may not have been aware.

The determination of "excited delirium" is extremely contested. It is not a condition that is endorsed or recognized by the WHO, APA, AMA, and is not in DSM IV.

Quote:

---

Excited delirium is not recognized by the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association, and therefore not listed as a medical condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The UK Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (IAP) suggests that the syndrome should be termed "Sudden death in restraint syndrome" in order to enhance clarity. Examples of deaths due to the condition are found primarily in restraint or attempted restraint situations, while medical preconditions and symptoms attributed to the syndrome are far more varied.

---

This actually jives quite well with what the medical examiner said, that he had blockage in his arteries, acute coronary syndrome, COVID19 diagnosis a few weeks earlier, not to mention a (3x more lethal) detection of fentanyl in Mr. Floyds system -- marijuana, Percocet (his friend that fled the scene said so, I believe), and meth in his system.

That's a lot. So its up to the jury to decide whether or not he died from a knee on the neck by Ofc Chauvin -- or the accumulation of acute coronary syndrome, an overdose of fentanyl and its counterindications with meth, maybe Perkys, and what seems like a panic attack that might have made these things worse.

Then, there's this, from the same wikipedia page

Quote:

---

Treatment initially may include ketamine or midazolam and haloperidol injected into a muscle to sedate the person Rapid cooling may be required in those with high body temperature. Other supportive measures such as intravenous fluids and sodium bicarbonate may be useful. One of the benefits of ketamine is its rapid onset of action The risk of death among those affected is less than 10%. If death occurs it is typically sudden and cardiac in nature. Concern has been raised by some medical professionals about the increasing usage of a claim of excited delirium to justify tranquilizing persons during arrest, with requests for tranquilization often being made by law enforcement rather than medical professionals. Ketamine is the most commonly used drug in these cases.

---

So a couple things here. If they thought he had excited delirium, which is a condition that is not widely recognized and may actually be a thing, but is recognized by LEO as something that happens....

It sounds like they were waiting for the Bus to get there to give him Ketamine to subdue Mr. Floyd. If you click the Wikipedia link, it shows a picture of someone that was in restraints and the caption reads "An example of physical restraints which may be used until chemical sedation takes effect. -- clearly indicating that its possible that treatment or reaction to encountering an individual experiencing this are the following.

So it leads me to believe that they were trained on what "excited delirium" is, and how to access their training to deal with it...which includes a forced restraint followed by injection of Ketamine, followed by monitoring by medical professionals in a hospital setting.

Quote:

---

The signs and symptoms for excited delirium may include:
Severe panic or distress, often exhibiting paranoia
Disorientation
Dissociation
Aggressiveness and combativeness
Fast heart rate
Hallucination
Diaphoresis (profuse sweating)
Incoherent speech or shouting
Unexpected strength (typically while trying to resist restraint)
Hyperthermia (overheating)
Inappropriately clothed e.g. having removed garments

---

I have highlighted some of those that Floyd may have exhibited at the time. It is not all of them, but these might be the most reasonable for a neutral observe to agree with.

So here we go. There was a protocol executed on an individual suspect because he exhibited behaviors of this condition that apparently does not pass muster with any of the governing bodies of psychology or science, the officers - who were trained to deal with this executed what the response should have been, and the man died in custody.

What do we do here? I honestly have no idea.

eric76 said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Magic City Wings said:

---

Quote:

---

cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law-enforcement subdual restraint, and neck compression

---

Why are the last five words constantly ignored?

---

Because the ME was pressured to add them and said so in a 302 by the FBI??

---

Link to that story? I'm interested to hear that.

---

First post.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3185635/replies

---

The very first post has selective editing of the 302. Why don't you post the whole part where the ME explained why he couldn't answer the "but for" clause? It's on page 6 at the very top.

Also, don't see where it was said that he was pressured to add the extra words.

E: to also add, the use of the word "prior" to being on the ground was a description of activities happening prior to Floyd being on the ground. Within the 302, he specifically states he cannot determine when he became critically ill but didn't appear to be critically ill at several points. The only time we actually know when Floyd's heart stopped (more or less) is when they couldn't detect a pulse at 6:30 mins into the hold.

---

It sounded to me like the part about police restraint is because his heart was in such shape that it couldn't take the stress.

Kind of like someone with an enlarged heart and with significant blockages having a heart attack with the added stress of shoveling snow.

---

Agree. My position has largely been that we (general public) give a lot of latitude to police to determine threat levels and provide police various tools to neutralize those threats. I also think it's up to the public (ie, a jury) to determine if that public trust was abused.

At some point Floyd was effectively "neutralized". People could argue maybe early in the MRT restraint with cuffs and 3 officers on top of him, it could be when Lane noted "He looks passed out" at 5:30 mins into the restraint, maybe it was when they first looked for a pulse at 6:30 and couldn't find one, maybe it was when they checked again for a pulse and still couldn't find it**.

His health (or anyone else's health) doesn't matter at that point because there's not a pulse. You shouldn't have to give the police a full physical report prior to being restrained. They should have, at the *very* minimum, get off of him to decrease risk to his life. I've also noted the MPD Chief has said the restraint was inappropriately applied, and he was denied the recovery position - twice - after being placed in the restraint, further increasing risk to Floyd life.

** On a personal note, I had a neighbor commit suicide by hanging himself. He was found alive, though with a weak pulse and breathing. By the time they rushed him to the hospital, too much damage was already done to various organs due to a lack of oxygen for him to live without help from a machine. I actually don't think the two autopsy reports between Baker and Baden (sp?) are that far apart, explain better here.

E: to add, people also need to realize how Minnesota law is written and how "low" the bar actually is. From a Minnesota Law Professor primer:

Quote:

---

Second-degree unintentional (felony) murder

This crime is defined broadly in Minnesota, so it will not be hard for the state to prove. The state need only show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while Chauvin was committing a felony that posed a "special danger" to human life. 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. At some point while being held down Floyd lost consciousness; prior cases have held that this constitutes substantial bodily harm and poses sufficient danger to permit felony murder liability. The state does not have to prove that Chauvin intended substantial harm (although that might be provable here police use of an "unconscious neck restraint," cutting off blood flow to the suspect's brain, is designed to cause loss of consciousness). Instead, under Minnesota's unusually broad felony assault rules, the state need only show that Chauvin intentionally did an act that constituted fifth-degree (i.e., misdemeanor) assault, and that substantial bodily harm occurred as a result. Fifth-degree assault consists of intentionally doing an act that causes some degree of bodily harm (including pain, such as to Floyd's neck or to his face against the rough pavement) or that is intended to cause fear of immediate bodily harm.

---

aginlakeway said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

---

of course. I've said that from the get go.

Good Poster said:

---

Baden's autopsy has no role in this trial whatsoever.

---

Yup, and why I'm still waiting for the various medical experts to come on and testify.

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

---

of course. I've said that from the get go.

---

Geez! Get off of my thread and start your own.

---

Get 'em, 'Hawg!

Will they waive the rule for Baden and let him sit at the defense table during the State's ME witnesses? Or does the defense have a different expert they are using?

That is if Baden is on the witness list.

Sorry mom, I can't come up to eat my mac-n-cheese, I have to correct someone on the internets. Can you bring me another Mountain Dew?

pdc093 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

---

of course. I've said that from the get go.

---

Geez! Get off of my thread and start your own.

---

Get 'em, 'Hawg!

---

I really messed up what I was trying to say there. I meant innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal proceedings. It does not apply to the media, public opinion, etc. Sorry about that.

olib said:

---

Will they waive the rule for Baden and let him sit at the defense table during the State's ME witnesses? Or does the defense have a different expert they are using?

That is if Baden is on the witness list.

---

No even the prosecution wants nothing to with Dr. Baden's bogus "autopsy" They won't call him.

BourbonAg said:

---

pdc093 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

---

of course. I've said that from the get go.

---

Geez! Get off of my thread and start your own.

---

Get 'em, 'Hawg!

---

I really messed up what I was trying to say there. I meant innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal proceedings. It does not apply to the media, public opinion, etc. Sorry about that.

---

You were just in a long line of posts. Meant nothing directed at you, necessarily.

BourbonAg said:

---

pdc093 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

---

of course. I've said that from the get go.

---

Geez! Get off of my thread and start your own.

---

Get 'em, 'Hawg!

---

I really messed up what I was trying to say there. I meant innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal proceedings. It does not apply to the media, public opinion, etc. Sorry about that.

---

It's true. Casey Anthony and OJ are prime examples of this. When the evidence is so strong against them but for whatever reason the prosecution fails to prove their case. But of course it's a good thing that the burden is so high in the courtroom.

It sounds like society's mind is made up about Chauvin. But I'll wait and see what happens.

larry culpepper said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

pdc093 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BourbonAg said:

---

I am not ready to opine either way yet but this concept of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the government (the prosecutor in this case). I think it is a a great concept to use in your daily life but people act like everyone in the country is supposed to use this standard.

---

If one is serving as a juror in a criminal trial that is the law. You are completely wrong and misguided.

---

the way I see it, in a courtroom, it's innocent until proven guilty. in the court of public opinion, it's preponderance of the evidence.

---

Correct. So you then assume the cop is innocent until proven guilty then? Right?

---

of course. I've said that from the get go.

---

Geez! Get off of my thread and start your own.

---

Get 'em, 'Hawg!

---

I really messed up what I was trying to say there. I meant innocent until proven guilty only applies in criminal proceedings. It does not apply to the media, public opinion, etc. Sorry about that.

---

It's true. Casey Anthony and OJ are prime examples of this. When the evidence is so strong against them but for whatever reason the prosecution fails to prove their case. But of course it's a good thing that the burden is so high in the courtroom.

It sounds like society's mind is made up about Chauvin. But I'll wait and see what happens.

---

Surely you aren't trying to equate Casey Anthony and OJ to this case?

Anthony's case was far from an easy prosecution. They could not prove that she killed her. Defense did a good job countering scientific evidence. Unfortunately the girl's body was found too late in the process and the cause of death couldn't be established. The duct tape evidence was probably the most damning, but the defense worked their way around it. Sleazy Baez worked his magic. He won the case in opening argument by giving an explanation that the prosecution couldn't refute, and put them on their heels with the sexual abuse allegations.

No, just citing examples. But I am wondering how Chauvin will be viewed should there be an acquittal.

Hawg, is the reason the State has levied so many related charges against Chauvin a case of the prosecution simply hoping that something will stick? I've heard of, say, felony assault accompanying a trespassing charge, but never have I seen multiple descending murder charges accompanied by a manslaughter charge.

https://centaurfilmworks.com/

Have not watched this yet but people seem to think this is good insight into the death. 24 minutes.

How many people go from passing fake 20s to dead in 30 minutes without doing additional drugs?

Good Poster said:

---

So the incident happened almost a year ago and we are almost a week into the trial and still zero evidence of racism and zero evidence of asphyxia?

Got it.

---

This is the crux of the matter. I'm not a doctor but I do have a medical background. Maybe a cardiologist can chime in and correct me.

• He didn't die of asphyxiation. We know this because if he can say "I can't breath", air is going out which means air is coming in. Also the ME, noted no signs of trauma to the trachea.
• He didn't die of a blood choke (strangulation), the vascular anatomy of the brain contains the Circle of Willis or sometimes called the Loop of Willis. This circular vasculature creates a redundancy in the brain so if blood supply were to be cut off from one carotid artery, blood can still perfuse the brain. Abbreviated version: It's almost impossible to cut off the blood to the brain by pushing on one side of the neck. If it were possible it wouldn't be so hard to get choke holds in UFC and every half-assed triangle choke would render someone unconscious.
• Congestive Heart Failure. There is a scenario where increased peripheral pressure backs up into left ventricle of an enlarged heart that leads to cardiac arrest. I'm not an expert in this area but my understanding is this would be easily identifiable as there would also be fluid in the lungs.
This is consistent with frothing at the mouth and the claims of "I can't breath" but there is no reasonable scenario where Chauvin would know a guy of Floyds age would have this condition. This is usually found in older people with a previous myocardial infarction. If this is ends up being the case then there is a major argument that Floyds crashing started the first time he said, "I Can't Breathe"

Sully Dog said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

So the incident happened almost a year ago and we are almost a week into the trial and still zero evidence of racism and zero evidence of asphyxia?

Got it.

---

This is the crux of the matter. I'm not a doctor but I do have a medical background. Maybe a cardiologist can chime in and correct me.

• He didn't die of asphyxiation. We know this because if he can say "I can't breath", air is going out which means air is coming in. Also the ME, noted no signs of trauma to the trachea.

---

From the ME's 302 on page 3:

Quote:

---

Just because Floyd had the ability to talk does not mean that his organs were receiving enough oxygen.

---

Relevant bc it relates to george floyd but just saw on Netflix Formula 1: Drive to Survive e10 that they decided to open it with "The following episode includes graphic footage of the killing of George Floyd. Viewer discretion is advised"

Oh please, you're acting as a jury before a jury and saying he was killed. He od'd. That's suicide.

Plus you don't want any viewer discretion, you're setting a scene. I've already seen how formula one has rainbow flags and end racism on their steering wheels. F1 is the most elite sport ever, polo might tie it. This whole parading around as if they are all gay and normal folks is the most sickening thing. How can libs be so blind to being played?

Sorry to hurt your feelings but that statement by the ME is BS.

Anyone who has worked around intubated patients knows this. I've watched girls in anaphylaxis go on for 20-30 minutes pushing much less air than Floyd.

And according to the ME's 302 that report is tainted so run along and go find a new source.

Good Poster said:

---

---

Again, from Washington Post:

Quote:

---

The effects of fentanyl and methamphetamine

Citing footage from Officer Thomas Lane's body camera for most of his argument, Chauvin's attorney recounted in court papers that the well-known events from last spring began when Lane and his partner, J. Alexander Kueng, approached Floyd's car. The rookie officers were investigating a complaint that Floyd had allegedly passed a counterfeit $20 bill in a nearby convenience store, Cup Foods.

Nelson declined a request for an interview.

"A white object was visible in Mr. Floyd's mouth," Nelson wrote. "At one point, Mr. Floyd turned away from officers, and when he faced them again, the white object was no longer visible."

Two other people in the car with Floyd, which was parked outside Cup Foods, told police that Floyd was a habitual drug user, and both later said they believed Floyd "was under the influence of narcotics," according to the court papers. Floyd had been previously arrested for drug possession.

One of the car passengers, Morries Lester Hall, said Floyd quickly fell asleep in the driver's seat upon returning from the minimart, according to Nelson's filing. That could have been a sign of use of illegal fentanyl, a fast-acting sedative and powerful painkiller that produces feelings of euphoria.

The police also suspected that Floyd was using drugs. As Lane and Kueng walked Floyd from the car to a sidewalk, they observed him "acting erratically" and repeatedly asked whether he was drunk or "on something," according to the court papers.

They also saw foam coming from Floyd's mouth, which he explained by saying he had been "hooping earlier." Nelson, citing the online Urban Dictionary, contended that this is an admission by Floyd that he had ingested drugs rectally.

During court proceedings on another matter Monday, Nelson asserted for the first time that fragments of a pill with Floyd's DNA on it were found in the back of the squad car. The fragments contained methamphetamine and fentanyl, he claimed. Prosecutors acknowledged the existence of the pill fragments and that they contained methamphetamine, but they did not address the other claims.

The Minnesota attorney general's office, which is prosecuting Chauvin, has a very different view of events. If Floyd had anything in his mouth, it was probably chewing gum, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank and private attorney Neal Katyal wrote in a Sept. 18 response to the defense's claims.

The "foam" around Floyd's mouth was probably spittle, they said, and "hooping" was a reference to playing basketball, which Floyd often did. They also noted Nelson's conflicting claims that Floyd had taken drugs orally and rectally. The prosecutors did not respond to a request for an interview.

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.
Instead, when Floyd lost consciousness and police could no longer find his pulse, the officers discussed rolling him onto his side to revive him, which Chauvin rejected in favor of waiting for medical personnel.

The police also refused the help of an off-duty firefighter who came to the scene before an ambulance arrived.

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd's blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user Chauvin's defense called him an "addict" who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.
T
he ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd's blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd's blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

In this case, lab records show that the analysis was performed on blood taken from Floyd at 9 p.m., less than an hour after the confrontation began, as hospital personnel were presumably working to save his life. The records note that the tests were performed on this "hospital blood," which likely makes them more accurate than blood recovered the next day during the autopsy.

Defense attorneys for Chauvin and the other officers have nevertheless seized on the toxicology findings and Baker's subsequent comments to prosecutors about those results.

According to notes of a meeting between Baker and prosecutors that have been filed as evidence in the case, the medical examiner told them that if Floyd had been "found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes," it would have been "acceptable" to call his death an overdose. But, Baker added, "I am not saying this killed him."

Nelson, the toxicologist, said "it is not inconceivable" that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug's impact cannot be considered separately from the officers' behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he "probably wouldn't have died," Nelson said.

"If you're not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute," he said.

"Context matters," Babu said.

Street-drug users often combine fentanyl with methamphetamine, Zibbell said, believing that the stimulant and the depressant balance each other. But experts said the amount of methamphetamine discovered was very small.

Chauvin's attorney contends the presence of both fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd's blood is evidence of the dangerous practice of taking the two drugs together, known as "speedballing," which can present the risk of "death from stroke, heart attack, aneurysm, or respiratory failure." He also cited Baker's remarks to the FBI that methamphetamine can be "bad for your heart."

Nelson, the toxicologist, said the small amount of methamphetamine in Floyd's blood indicates he took the substance a day earlier or perhaps the same morning, not in combination with fentanyl at the scene. Methamphetamine remains in the body for about three days, he said.

---

But yea, let's believe the twitter guy with a circular argument.

Sully Dog said:

---

Sorry to hurt your feelings but that statement by the ME is BS.

Anyone who has worked around intubated patients knows this. I've watched girls in anaphylaxis go on for 20-30 minutes pushing much less air than Floyd.

And according to the ME's 302 that report is tainted so run along and go find a new source.

---

The same source everyone cites that if Floyd was found alone then he would have found it to be an overdose?