Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

[Ghost of a Rider]

Nope. That was the prosecutors initial charging document

We’re talking about the ME’s autopsy report, not the charging document.

and if you look at the prosecutor who signed that document it wasn't Keith Ellison who would be tapped later to actually handle the case. If anything it looks like the initial prosecutor was try to do damage control for the police before the autopsy was even done.

I don’t care.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Sorry, not happening. If you think I’m questioning his competence when I say I’m not, there’s nothing else to say, is there?

So who do you think is more likely to be correct? The competent medical expert or the person with no medical experience who believes the medical expert is wrong?

 

[XponentialChaos]

So not knowing pathology is not really the point in my case, is it?

Yes, it is. Are you a lawyer who is just doing his job of questioning the medical expert? No? What a weird argument.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Video is way too long.

You mean he altered his report based on ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

What additional evidence?

That's how science works, you get more data, you change your conclusion.

So what was this “more data”?

Yes, I did.

No, you did not. You said “millions”. You then said Chauvin said “seven figures” which could be ONE million.

Nope. My Dad did for decades, as have my idiot brothers (who vote Republican and don't understand the GOP wants to take their goodies away.)

Nevertheless, this is one of the services unions provide.

Doesn't take away from my point about public Service Unions, especially the Fascist Order of Police, that I have no use for.

They’re not there for your use unless you’re a cop and pay into it.

What witch-hunt? The reality is that we had a decade of these kinds of incidents,

Which resulted in a witch hunt which then resulted in all officers being villified in a blanket condemnation which in turn resulted in officers being ambushed and assassinated.

where the offending cop either got no prosecution or a slap on the wrist sentences. People finally got fed up. (Although thanks to TRUMP PLAGUE(TM) and TRUMP RECESSION(TM), anxiety was already on edge.

What does any of this have to do with Trump?

 

[Curried Goats]

It was never published or made public before he added neck compression, dumbass.

Then how do you know neck compression was something added after he already concluded cause of death?

You're basically admitting you have no proof this alternative cause of death ever actually existed.

We’re talking about the ME’s autopsy report, not the charging document.

The autopsy report has always concluded homicide due to neck compression since it was first published. The only document that suggests otherwise is the charging document that admits its information is from an unfinished autopsy and is signed by the prosecutor ( not Keith Ellison) not the M.E.

I don’t care.

I know you don't care about facts you racist. That's to be expected from your lot.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sure it is. Floyd was having trouble breathing.

Probably because of the drugs.

Chauvin then negligently applied MRT and Floyd died under Chauvin's weight on his neck. ME determined it a homicide.

Floyd died with Chauvin’s knee on his neck, which proves nothing except he died with someone’s knee on his neck.

There has still been no forensic evidence presented that this is what killed Floyd.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

View attachment 867576

So who do you think is more likely to be correct? The competent medical expert or the person with no medical experience who believes the medical expert is wrong?

Says the guy who refused to answer a simple question.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Says the guy who refused to answer a simple question.

Oh I didn’t run away from anything. You just don’t like my answer.

So who do you think is more likely to be correct? The competent medical expert or the person with no medical experience who believes the medical expert is wrong?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes, it is. Are you a lawyer who is just doing his job of questioning the medical expert? No? What a weird argument.

The questioning I’m referring to happened before the trial, not during the trial.

Baker submitted his findings to the prosecutors as they were building their case before the official release. They criticized him for not noting the neck compression.

In other words, non-experts in pathology (the prosecutors) told the expert in pathology he was wrong.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes, it is. Are you a lawyer who is just doing his job of questioning the medical expert? No? What a weird argument.

The questioning I’m referring to happened before the trial, not during the trial.

Isn’t that still just the lawyers doing their job? What a dumb argument.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Then how do you know neck compression was something added after he already concluded cause of death?

Read the articles I linked.

You're basically admitting you have no proof this alternative cause of death ever actually existed.

I never said I had proof.

The autopsy report has always concluded homicide due to neck compression since it was first published.

Right. BUT IT WAS ADDED LATER AFTER CRITICISM BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED.

The only document that suggests otherwise is the charging document that admits its information is from an unfinished autopsy and is signed by the prosecutor ( not Keith Ellison) not the M.E.

I don’t give a shit about the charging document.

I know you don't care about facts you racist. That's to be expected from your lot.

You haven’t given any facts for me to dispute and in fact, I never disputed any.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Oh I didn’t run away from anything. You just don’t like my answer.

It wasn’t an answer because you never answered as to how it was relevant which was what I asked.

So who do you think is more likely to be correct? The competent medical expert or the person with no medical experience who believes the medical expert is wrong?

Ain’t happenin’.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Isn’t that still just the lawyers doing their job?

To tell the expert he’s wrong before the trial begins?

 

[XponentialChaos]

It wasn’t an answer because you never answered as to how it was relevant which was what I asked.


Ain’t happenin’.

Maybe you’re running away from answering because it’s a stupid fucking argument you’re making.

 

[XponentialChaos]

To tell the expert he’s wrong before the trial begins?

Sure. Lawyers do things prior to trial, you know. What a dumb argument.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

View attachment 867591

Maybe you’re running away from answering because it’s a stupid fucking argument you’re making.

You’re the one who made knowledge of pathology an issue, not me. If knowledge of pathology is as significant as you make it out to be then explain how a lawyer not knowing pathology is any different from me not knowing pathology.

 

[Curried Goats]

Read the articles I linked.

I have. Quote the parts you think support your argument.

I never said I had proof.

So you're imagining this evidence?

Right. BUT IT WAS ADDED LATER AFTER CRITICISM BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED.

Which isn't evidence that criticism affected the final result. Criticism could of been avoided all together if the prosecutor, who was later replaced by Ellison, hadn't included preliminary findings.

I don’t give a shit about the charging document.

Because you don't like me pointing out that the source from which all the criticism sprang was a replaced prosecutor and not the M.E.

You haven’t given any facts for me to dispute and in fact, I never disputed any.

I have facts. You have your imagination.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sure. Lawyers do things prior to trial, you know. What a dumb argument.

Vague and pointless. Of course lawyers “do things” prior to trial.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You’re the one who made knowledge of pathology an issue, not me.

Right. Because if you’re arguing that the medical expert is wrong despite the fact that you have no knowledge of pathology, then that would be a stupid fucking argument.

If knowledge of pathology is as significant as you make it out to be then explain how a lawyer not knowing pathology is any different from me not knowing pathology.

I did. The lawyer is simply doing his job. You’re not a lawyer. You’re just an idiot with no knowledge of pathology yet arguing that you believe the medical expert is wrong. That’s pretty fucking stupid.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Vague and pointless. Of course lawyers “do things” prior to trial.

If you need me to connect the dots for you, that’s fine. Lawyers do things prior to trial. Those things are done with the interests of their client in mind. Questioning/criticizing a medical examiner’s report is one of those things that may be done by a lawyer for those reasons. So, no, I don’t have a problem with a lawyer for doing their job. What a bizarre argument.