Heroic Derek Chauvin Appeals to US Supreme Court

[Billo_Really]

Feelings explosion
When people say fuck you or shut up it’s because they are emotionally distraught over not having a fact rebuttal

Floyd didn't die from an overdose.

 

[Frankenstein]

Floyd didn't die from an overdose.

Yes he did

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again, both. They both ruled homicide.

But they differ on the manner of Floyd's death.

The medical examiners said homicide. Case closed.

They also said there was no sign of asphyxiation, that Floyd had severe heart disease and that he had a lethal amount of drugs in his system.

Right. So you, someone with no medical background whatsoever, want to argue that the medical experts here may have been biased. And you think that's a compelling argument?

Given the fact that some still think Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown even after his acquittal, yes, I think they very well could have been biased.

Like I said, unless you can prove any thing of the sort, you have nothing but a losing argument.

I can’t prove anything and I never suggested I could.

Excellent. Then you can stop asking me. I'll go with what the medical experts think.

I only asked you if the fact of Floyd’s respiratory distress was brought up in the trial or if you think it should have been. I never suggested the MEs were wrong.

Having said that, you say you don’t know if it was brought up in the trial and you refuse to say whether or not you think it should have been. At the same time you say you’ll go with what the medical experts say.
The problem here is that, if the medical examiners did not take this into account and if no one brought it up in the trial, their findings are inherently flawed.

Showing that the media is biased sometimes in no way indicates that both medical examiners were biased. Stupid argument.

I never said anything about the media. Although there was definitely bias there, I was talking about people in general. And no, there's no reason not to think that both of them could have been biased.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, sometimes people are biased. You see, this one time, the media was biased against Sandmann, and therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

Oh fer fuck's sake.

Sandmann was one example of bias. The Michael Brown case is another (and better) example. Even after being acquitted, Darren Wilson is still reviled by many. Many people thought he murdered Brown right up to the moment of his acquittal and many still do. Don't tell me there is no bias in these types of cases.

There's no way to prove bias and there's no reason to believe that both of these medical examiners were biased. Stupid fucking argument.

I told you there’s no way to prove bias, dumbass.

I’m not trying to prove anything and I know I can’t. We’re just having a discussion and I’m expressing my doubts and concerns about the way this went down. Okay?

Medical examiner says homicide. I'll take his word over whatever bullshit your pushing.

Irrelevant. You claim I’m coming up with bullshit theories when I have not.

Yes. He ruled homicide. Hard to argue against that.

I've never argued against his ruling or that of the other two, I'm merely pointing out that he said no asphyxiation when the other two said there was.

I don't know. I can think of two reasons.

1) It strengthens their argument when there are now two independent reports showing that Chauvin killed him. It's kind of hard to argue that both of them were biased, yet here we are lol.

I never said they were biased. lol.

2) I think Baker's writing was excessively complicated for many non-medical people to understand. They wanted something simple and straight to the point like "He died from asphyxia" and they got language that was far more technical: "Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." I think it left enough room for people to question what was even stated in the report. Once again, here we are lol.

It’s a standard ME report for Christ’s sake. That’s how they’re supposed to write their reports. Jesus Christ.

No. This is what I mean in that second point I posted above. "No physical sign of asphyxiation" means exactly what it says. There was no physical sign of it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If there’s no physical sign of asphyxiation then what did they base their findings on?

From my understanding, someone can be strangled and that will often leave injuries to the victim's neck. That's not the same as someone getting smothered by a pillow, which will presumably not leave those physical signs while still ending up with the same result of asphyxiation. But I'm not the expert here. He is. And he ruled homicide.

But was it the chest/neck compression or the drugs in his system? Remember, he had trouble breathing before the knee on his neck. As I understand it, trouble breathing is one of the possible symptoms of fentanyl overdose.

"Asphyxiation by a variety of methods is an increasingly common type of torture. It usually leaves no marks, produces a death experience with loss of consciousness, and recuperation is rapid."

Suffocation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

And fentanyl could have been the cause in this case.

Yea, I'll still go with the findings of the medical experts over some random person on the internet. Thanks though.

Of course you will. Critical thinking doesn’t seem to be your forte.

 

[XponentialChaos]

But they differ on the manner of Floyd's death.

No, they didn't.

They also said there was no sign of asphyxiation, that Floyd had severe heart disease and that he had a lethal amount of drugs in his system.

No physical sign of asphyxiation does not mean there was no asphyxiation.

Given the fact that some still think Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown even after his acquittal, yes, I think they very well could have been biased.

Irrelevant. The medical examiner report had no such bias.

I can’t prove anything and I never suggested I could.

Of course you can't. All you have is "Well you see, it's maybe sort of, kind of possible that maybe both independent medical examiners were biased in their reports." Stupid fucking argument. Reasonable people are going to go with the medical experts.

I only asked you if the fact of Floyd’s respiratory distress was brought up in the trial or if you think it should have been. I never suggested the MEs were wrong.

I'm not a medical expert. They are. I'll go with what they concluded.

Having said that, you say you don’t know if it was brought up in the trial and you refuse to say whether or not you think it should have been. At the same time you say you’ll go with what the medical experts say.
The problem here is that, if the medical examiners did not take this into account and if no one brought it up in the trial, their findings are inherently flawed.

Right. So you think the medical examiners findings may have been flawed. I'll go with their expertise on this matter, not yours.

I never said anything about the media. Although there was definitely bias there, I was talking about people in general. And no, there's no reason not to think that both of them could have been biased.

People are biased therefore you want to argue the possibility of both medical examiners being biased despite having absolutely no medical knowledge whatsoever. Super compelling argument. Maybe you should have been Chauvin's lawyer.

Oh fer fuck's sake.

Sandmann was one example of bias. The Michael Brown case is another (and better) example. Even after being acquitted, Darren Wilson is still reviled by many. Many people thought he murdered Brown right up to the moment of his acquittal and many still do. Don't tell me there is no bias in these types of cases.

The fact that people are biased sometimes is a stupid fucking argument.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, sometimes people are biased. You see, this one time, people were biased against Sandmann, and this other time people were biased against Michael Brown. Therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

I told you there’s no way to prove bias, dumbass.

Did I disagree with you on that, you stupid fucking retard?

I’m not trying to prove anything and I know I can’t. We’re just having a discussion and I’m expressing my doubts and concerns about the way this went down. Okay?

You can express any stupid opinions you want. I'm still going with the expertise from the medical professionals, not some retarded moron on the internet. Okay?

Irrelevant. You claim I’m coming up with bullshit theories when I have not.

You're the one bringing up bias. That would be a bullshit theory, based on nothing, with absolutely no basis for. Dumbass.

I've never argued against his ruling or that of the other two, I'm merely pointing out that he said no asphyxiation when the other two said there was.

Once again, no he didn't. He did not say there was no asphyxiation. If you had any integrity, you would recognize that you're a lying sack of shit for continuing to push this lie.

I never said they were biased. lol.

You're the one bringing it up. Not me. Dumbass.

It’s a standard ME report for Christ’s sake. That’s how they’re supposed to write their reports. Jesus Christ.

How much experience do you have writing ME reports? If your answer is 0, then you should probably shut the fuck up because you have no idea what you're talking about.

If there’s no physical sign of asphyxiation then what did they base their findings on?

I'm not the medical expert. I'm simply explaining that it's possible to asphyxiate without there being physical marks of it. I would expect a medical examiner to be able to make such determinations.

But was it the chest/neck compression or the drugs in his system? Remember, he had trouble breathing before the knee on his neck. As I understand it, trouble breathing is one of the possible symptoms of fentanyl overdose.

I'm just going with what the medical expert concluded, not some dumbass on the internet.

And fentanyl could have been the cause in this case.

According to you. Not according to the two independent medical examiners. I'll take their findings over yours.

Of course you will. Critical thinking doesn’t seem to be your forte.

You're not demonstrating critical thinking skills by challenging the findings of the medical experts when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You're just a moron.

 

[SavannahMann]

Floyd died from a drug overdose and was already in the process of dying from an overdose before officer Chauvin restrained him. The tainted jurors who convicted Chauvin did so out of fear that they would be targeted by the left and the media if they didn't find him guilty.

Cop Who Kneeled On George Floyd Appeals To US Supreme Court | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Derek Chauvin who was convicted of second-degree murder of George Floyd has appealed to the USSC after the state of Minnesota refused his appeal without explanation.

Chauvin's lawyer is saying the original trial was tainted by the media and courts so that facts were discarded such as:

-Floyd admitted to using drugs on video.

-Floyd repeatedly said he couldn't breathe on video before the cops ever touched him.

-Floyd's lungs were 2 to 3 times the normal size and filled with fluid. This is a symptom of an overdose.

-A Floyd hired family pathologist claimed Floyd died of Asphyxiation, but the government found he died from cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained and that there were "no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

-Hennepin County's chief medical examiner strongly suggested the primary cause of death was the deadly combination of Fentanyl, Meth, and a long list of Floyd's health problems.

-Floyd had almost 4 times the level of Fentanyl that is considered lethal.

-The restraint of using a knee on the back was in fact part of the training that officers received.

-Chauvin was the police officer that asked the ambulance to make Floyd a top priority and to hurry it up to the scene.

It’s amazing. Everything you posted was only partially true, or a flat out lie.

Examples. Dying of a drug overdose. The cause of death has always been determined by a Medical Examiner. The Defense couldn’t find one ME to claim it was a drug overdose. The single ME they got said he would rule it undetermined. However on Cross Examination drove the nails into Chauvin’s coffin.

I won’t bother listing all the lies. I’d like to leave something for others. However one last one. Yes the knee was authorized. Until the suspect is restrained. That is to say in handcuffs. Afterwards it was no longer authorized. And it certainly wasn’t authorized after the suspect lost custody. And was not authorized when the cops couldn’t find a pulse.

So Chauvin was convicted. Properly and based upon evidence in the trial. You probably didn’t hear that on your RW Propaganda sites.

 

[cnm]

No joke. Macho is a real racist. It's interesting watching em in the wild

It's like watching a David Attenborough production.

 

[DudleySmith]

No physical sign of asphyxiation does not mean there was no asphyxiation.

lol hilarious stuff. Druggies are constantly defending their fellower dopers, no matter how stupid the argument.

Floyd's blood oxygen levels were higher than mine were from my last blood test. Guess how oxygen gets into your bloodstream.

 

[XponentialChaos]

lol hilarious stuff. Druggies are constantly defending their fellower dopers, no matter how stupid the argument.

Floyd's blood oxygen levels were higher than mine were from my last blood test. Guess how oxygen gets into your bloodstream.

Whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re failing at it.

The medical examiners already ruled this a homicide. Case closed.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did. Baker’s report specifically said no sign of asphyxiation where the other two said there was.

No physical sign of asphyxiation does not mean there was no asphyxiation.

Not the point.

Irrelevant. The medical examiner report had no such bias.

How do you know this? You don’t even know if Floyd’s respiratory distress before Chauvin’s knee was known and ackowledged or brought up in the trial. What’s worse, you don’t care.

Of course you can't. All you have is "Well you see, it's maybe sort of, kind of possible that maybe both independent medical examiners were biased in their reports." Stupid fucking argument. Reasonable people are going to go with the medical experts.

If by “Reasonable people” you mean those who never critically examine issues or raise pertinent and important questions and simply go with rulings and findings they hoped for, you’re absolutely correct.

I'm not a medical expert. They are. I'll go with what they concluded.

This has nothing to do with medical expertise.

Right. So you think the medical examiners findings may have been flawed. I'll go with their expertise on this matter, not yours.

If Floyd’s pre-existing respiratory distress was not considered and taken into account during their exam then yes, their findings are flawed.

People are biased therefore you want to argue the possibility of both medical examiners being biased despite having absolutely no medical knowledge whatsoever. Super compelling argument. Maybe you should have been Chauvin's lawyer.

Bias has nothing to do with medical knowledge. It won’t change their level of expertise but it can impair judgment.

The fact that people are biased sometimes is a stupid fucking argument.

People are biased all the time. It’s an inherent trait of human behavior.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, sometimes people are biased. You see, this one time, people were biased against Sandmann, and this other time people were biased against Michael Brown. Therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

Don’t be an idiot.

Did I disagree with you on that, you stupid fucking retard?

What was the point in telling me I can’t prove bias after I just told you that?

You can express any stupid opinions you want. I'm still going with the expertise from the medical professionals, not some retarded moron on the internet. Okay?

I said “doubts and concerns”, not opinion.

You're the one bringing up bias. That would be a bullshit theory, based on nothing, with absolutely no basis for. Dumbass.

Yes, I brought up bias. I brought it up because I’ve seen a ton of it in the last few years.

One particular item that has me thinking bias is that they ordered an independent autopsy despite the fact that the original ME ruled it a homicide. They then did their own autopsy and ruled the same thing. So what was the point? If homicide is what they wanted then why didn’t they go with Baker’s ruling?

Once again, no he didn't. He did not say there was no asphyxiation. If you had any integrity, you would recognize that you're a lying sack of shit for continuing to push this lie.

It’s right there in Baker’s original autopsy report: “No sign of asphyxiation”.

You're the one bringing it up. Not me. Dumbass.

Irrelevant. I still never said they were.

How much experience do you have writing ME reports? If your answer is 0, then you should probably shut the fuck up because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Baker has experience writing ME reports and this particular one was published.

Beyond that, I have enough sense to know that if one conducts an autopsy then he’s going to have to record his findings in medical terms that another ME or doctor will understand and make sense of.

But I’m sure you already know this.

I'm not the medical expert. I'm simply explaining that it's possible to asphyxiate without there being physical marks of it. I would expect a medical examiner to be able to make such determinations.

Based on what?

If there are no physical signs of asphyxiation but he rules asphyxiation, he can’t base that on nothing. So what did they base it on?

I'm just going with what the medical expert concluded, not some dumbass on the internet.

Of course you are. Because they gave you the ruling you wanted.

According to you. Not according to the two independent medical examiners. I'll take their findings over yours.

Again, Baker himself said there was enough fentanyl in his system which, had Floyd been found dead in his home, fentanyl overdose would have been a foregone conclusion.

You're not demonstrating critical thinking skills by challenging the findings of the medical experts when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You're just a moron.

Again, I’m not challenging their expertise, I’m asking questions that, if no definite and concise answers are forthcoming, make me wonder about their integrity.

 

[Arlette]

Yes, they did. Baker’s report specifically said no sign of asphyxiation where the other two said there was.


Not the point.


How do you know this? You don’t even know if Floyd’s respiratory distress before Chauvin’s knee was known and ackowledged or brought up in the trial. What’s worse, you don’t care.


If by “Reasonable people” you mean those who never critically examine issues or raise pertinent and important questions and simply go with rulings and findings they hoped for, you’re absolutely correct.


This has nothing to do with medical expertise.


If Floyd’s pre-existing respiratory distress was not considered and taken into account during their exam then yes, their findings are flawed.


Bias has nothing to do with medical knowledge. It won’t change their level of expertise but it can impair judgment.


People are biased all the time. It’s an inherent trait of human behavior.


Don’t be an idiot.


What was the point in telling me I can’t prove bias after I just told you that?


I said “doubts and concerns”, not opinion.


Yes, I brought up bias. I brought it up because I’ve seen a ton of it in the last few years.

One particular item that has me thinking bias is that they ordered an independent autopsy despite the fact that the original ME ruled it a homicide. They then did their own autopsy and ruled the same thing. So what was the point? If homicide is what they wanted then why didn’t they go with Baker’s ruling?


It’s right there in Baker’s original autopsy report: “No sign of asphyxiation”.


Irrelevant. I still never said they were.


Baker has experience writing ME reports and this particular one was published.

Beyond that, I have enough sense to know that if one conducts an autopsy then he’s going to have to record his findings in medical terms that another ME or doctor will understand and make sense of.

But I’m sure you already know this.


Based on what?

If there are no physical signs of asphyxiation but he rules asphyxiation, he can’t base that on nothing. So what did they base it on?


Of course you are. Because they gave you the ruling you wanted.


Again, Baker himself said there was enough fentanyl in his system which, had Floyd been found dead in his home, fentanyl overdose would have been a foregone conclusion.


Again, I’m not challenging their expertise, I’m asking questions that, if no definite and concise answers are forthcoming, make me wonder about their integrity.

I don't know why you are arguing that the jury got it all wrong. Not even Chauvin is arguing that. His argument is that his case was "tainted" simply by the press covering it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes, they did. Baker’s report specifically said no sign of asphyxiation where the other two said there was.

Did one say that there was a physical sign of asphyxiation? Did the other one say that there was no physical sign of asphyxiation? That's how they would differ. They don't differ. They're just different ways of describing the same thing.

Not the point.

Of course it is. You keep lying about this claim that he said there was no asphyxiation. That's not what he fucking said and you damn well know that you're lying about that.

How do you know this? You don’t even know if Floyd’s respiratory distress before Chauvin’s knee was known and ackowledged or brought up in the trial. What’s worse, you don’t care.

I have no reason to believe there was bias from the medical examiners. That's all you.

If by “Reasonable people” you mean those who never critically examine issues or raise pertinent and important questions and simply go with rulings and findings they hoped for, you’re absolutely correct.

By "reasonable people" I mean people who acknowledge that they aren't medical experts and that they should go with the findings of the medical experts instead of pretending they know more than those people. Not very smart of you.

This has nothing to do with medical expertise.

Of course it does. They're medical experts. You're not. They think it was a homicide. You don't. Hmmm, what side should reasonable people go with? Very difficult.

If Floyd’s pre-existing respiratory distress was not considered and taken into account during their exam then yes, their findings are flawed.

The non-medical expert thinks he knows more than the medical experts. That's adorable.

Bias has nothing to do with medical knowledge. It won’t change their level of expertise but it can impair judgment.

You have no reason to believe their judgment has been impaired. You're just an idiot.

People are biased all the time. It’s an inherent trait of human behavior.

Great argument.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, people are biased all the time. It's an inherent trait of human behavior. Therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

Don’t be an idiot.

No, you're the idiot if you think it's wise to argue against the findings of two independent medical examiners when you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

What was the point in telling me I can’t prove bias after I just told you that?

I was expanding on that statement, dumbass. There's no way to prove bias and there's no reason to believe that both of these medical examiners were biased.

I said “doubts and concerns”, not opinion.

Ok. You can have any stupid doubts and concerns. I'm still going with the medical professionals, not some retarded moron on the internet.

Better?

Yes, I brought up bias. I brought it up because I’ve seen a ton of it in the last few years.

"Your honor, I understand that there is video footage of the defendant killing that person. Your honor, I also understand that the medical examiner's findings show that the defendant killed that person. But your honor, I've seen a ton of bias in the last few years. Therefore my client deserves to go free. I rest my case."

Stupid.

One particular item that has me thinking bias is that they ordered an independent autopsy despite the fact that the original ME ruled it a homicide. They then did their own autopsy and ruled the same thing. So what was the point? If homicide is what they wanted then why didn’t they go with Baker’s ruling?

I already gave you my take on this. Not sure why you feel the need to repeat your stupid thoughts at me.

1) Multiple independent medical examiners reduces the possibility of bias.
2) The report was excessively wordy and difficult for non-medical people to understand.

Any other stupid thoughts you'd like to repeat at me? Should I just go ahead and copy/paste this again for your stupid ass?

It’s right there in Baker’s original autopsy report: “No sign of asphyxiation”.

No, here's what you said: "...I'm merely pointing out that he said no asphyxiation..."

For the 500th time, no asphyxiation is not the same as no sign of asphyxiation. Jesus Christ. How are you this dumb?

Irrelevant. I still never said they were.

So we agree that there's no reason to believe they're biased. Awesome. You can go ahead and shut the fuck up about that any day now then.

Baker has experience writing ME reports and this particular one was published.

Correct. And you have zero experience writing ME reports. Maybe you should try shutting the fuck up about things you don't know about?

Beyond that, I have enough sense to know that if one conducts an autopsy then he’s going to have to record his findings in medical terms that another ME or doctor will understand and make sense of.

But I’m sure you already know this.

Of course. Other medical examiners should be able to understand his work. Idiots on the internet, not so much.

Based on what?

If there are no physical signs of asphyxiation but he rules asphyxiation, he can’t base that on nothing. So what did they base it on?

I don't know, I'm not the medical expert. Neither are you. That's kind of why I leave it to the experts in that field.

Of course you are. Because they gave you the ruling you wanted.

What makes you think I would disagree with the findings of two independent medical examiners? I keep telling you, I'm not an expert in their line of work, so I'm going to go with their findings regardless of the outcome. That's what reasonable people would do.

Again, Baker himself said there was enough fentanyl in his system which, had Floyd been found dead in his home, fentanyl overdose would have been a foregone conclusion.

Baker also said HOMICIDE. What part of this are you failing to understand? According to Baker's report, the fentanyl didn't kill him. Chauvin killed him. How stupid do you have to be to fail to grasp this?

Again, I’m not challenging their expertise, I’m asking questions that, if no definite and concise answers are forthcoming, make me wonder about their integrity.

You can question their integrity all you want. You're still a fucking moron who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Yes he did

Says you. The coroner and more importantly the jury said otherwise.

Good luck with an appeal to the Supreme Court on a jury's judgment.

 

[SavannahMann]

lol hilarious stuff. Druggies are constantly defending their fellower dopers, no matter how stupid the argument.

Floyd's blood oxygen levels were higher than mine were from my last blood test. Guess how oxygen gets into your bloodstream.

So why couldn’t the Defense find a single Medical Examiner who would state it was an Overdose. I mean apparently everybody knows right?

Why couldn’t the Defense find a single Pulminologist to refute the testimony of the Prosecution expert?

Why did the Defense Medical Examiner agree with every single point made by the prosecution under cross examination?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I don't know why you are arguing that the jury got it all wrong. Not even Chauvin is arguing that. His argument is that his case was "tainted" simply by the press covering it.

I never said anything about the jury.

 

[DudleySmith]

So why couldn’t the Defense find a single Medical Examiner who would state it was an Overdose. I mean apparently everybody knows right?

Why couldn’t the Defense find a single Pulminologist to refute the testimony of the Prosecution expert?

Why did the Defense Medical Examiner agree with every single point made by the prosecution under cross examination?

For the same reason they refused to pick an objective jury who would resist being intimidated and being threatened by your peers in the violent mobs. That's why these fake prosecutions are called railroad jobs and pogroms.

 

[DudleySmith]

Whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re failing at it.

The medical examiners already ruled this a homicide. Case closed.

And they lied. Case closed.

 

[Arlette]

I never said anything about the jury.

You want to relitigate the case. What led to the death of George Floyd is irrelevant as it pertains to the topic of this thread. The topic is his appeal and the reason cited, namely "tainting" by the media.

 

[SavannahMann]

For the same reason they refused to pick an objective jury who would resist being intimidated and being threatened by your peers in the violent mobs. That's why these fake prosecutions are called railroad jobs and pogroms.

There is an alternative explanation. One supported by the facts. Regarding the Overdose, the Defense Coroner, the Defense expert to counter the arguments of the Prosecution regarding the Overdose. No evidence of an overdose.



The Cross examination was so awful for the defense I’m sure that law schools are using it to show prospective lawyers what kind of expert to never, ever, put on the stand. Just never.

Here is the original uncut and unfiltered. If you want to watch the Defense Expert just totally make the case for the Prosecution.



Questions that almost certainly guaranteed Chauvin’s guilty verdict. Things like. As a Medical Doctor, would you want to see someone kneeling on another person like that? Answer. No, not as a medical doctor.

On and on. It went. Every step of the events that led to Floyd’s death. As a Medical Doctor, would you say that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that Floyd would be alive today if Officer Chauvin had begun CPR when they were unable to find a pulse? As a medical Doctor, yes, I consider it possible.

It was the worst thing that could have happened to Chauvin. His own expert testifying that all the things that Chauvin did, that the Doctor just said didn’t do anything, well, those things I wouldn’t suggest, and as a Doctor would recommend that nobody ever do, thanks.

So now you know why I don’t see it as likely that they’ll order a new trial. And if by some miracle that they do, the exact same outcome will be had. Because there are a few ways to get out of something like this for Chauvin, for anyone.

First defense option. It wasn’t me. I wasn’t there. Chauvin is on tape and filed a report so he can’t really use that.

Second Defense Option. I was doing my job. The testimony of the trainer, and the Chief of Police that Chauvin violated procedures and held the knee on the neck for an extended period when it was not authorized. Explaining that it was only authorized to be used to get the suspect into restraints, or custody if you prefer. It was not authorized once the person was restrained.

Third possibility. I didn’t kill him, something else did. This is the favorite of the lunatics who swear he was railroaded. But for this you need some sort of medical expert to make that argument. And Sadly, not one was willing to say so. And the idea that the ME was afraid? The guy the defense got was trying to explain it could have been the car exhaust. If he was willing to put forward such an asinine argument to try and help Chauvin, humiliating himself, why would he be unwilling to say it was drugs? In fact, why did he testify that there were no signs or symptoms of the drugs in Floyd’s behavior?

An answer you won’t like. The drugs were not responsible for Floyd’s death. Chauvin was.

 

[Frankenstein]

So why couldn’t the Defense find a single Medical Examiner who would state it was an Overdose. I mean apparently everybody knows right?

Why couldn’t the Defense find a single Pulminologist to refute the testimony of the Prosecution expert?

Why did the Defense Medical Examiner agree with every single point made by the prosecution under cross examination?

Because they didn't want their house burned and their family killed?

 

[Frankenstein]

Whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re failing at it.

The medical examiners already ruled this a homicide. Case closed.

Out of fear for their lives