Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

[Faun]

Probably because of the drugs.

It doesn't matter what the reason was. He already had a problem breathing. Putting him on his stomach with 3 grown men on him; one of whom put more weight on Floyd's neck that he was trained not to do, inhibited his breathing to the point hf died.

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.

Sure there was. The ME determined it was a homicide, not an accident and not a suicide.

 

[Faun]

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.

Medical examiner: No one pressured him to include anything on George Floyd autopsy report

Defense attorneys at the trial of three former Minneapolis police officer charged with violating George Floyd's rights questioned the chief medical examiner who ruled George Floyd's death a homicide.

www.wbaltv.com

The chief medical examiner who deemed George Floyd's death a homicide testified Tuesday that nobody pressured him to include anything in his autopsy report...

 

[Arlette]

The murderer Chauvin will sit. Until it's time for him to die

 

[irosie91]

It doesn't matter what the reason was. He already had a problem breathing. Putting him oh his stomach with 3 grown men on him; one of whom put more weight on Floyd's neck that he was trained not to do.



Sure there was. The ME determined it was a homicide, not an accident and not a suicide.

the ME did not provide the pathological evidence ----his conclusion was more like
conjecture than diagnosis-----IMO (as if anyone cared)

 

[Faun]

the ME did not provide the pathological evidence ----his conclusion was more like
conjecture than diagnosis-----IMO (as if anyone cared)

It was based on the lack of evidence of an overdose.

 

[irosie91]

It was based on the lack of evidence of an overdose.

seemed very iffy to me

 

[Faun]

seemed very iffy to me

So?

 

[irosie91]

So?

so----not murder

 

[Faun]

so----not murder

It was negligent homicide

 

[JoeB131]

Video is way too long.

Your attention span is too short, and they made the key point in the first few minutes.

What additional evidence?

Knee to the Neck.

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

It could also be $9,999,999.99. Point was, the FOP and donations for right wingers gave Chauvin's lawyers millions to work with, resources your average kid accused of holding up a liquor store doesn't get.

But if the crime is caught on video, it doesn't matter much in either case.

Nevertheless, this is one of the services unions provide.

It shouldn't be, and for most unions, it isn't.

here's the problem. You look at any cop involved in one of these incidents of excessive force- Chauvin, Van Dyke, Wilson, Loehmann - you find a record that in most of the civilian world would have gotten you fired for poor conduct. Chauvin had been involved in a couple of officer-involved shootings and a previous case where he nearly choked a teenage boy to death. But thanks to the Union, he still had a job.

I think of the happy alternate universe, where there is no union, Chauvin gets fired the minute people realize he's a bad apple, and we avoid all the riots and huge payments.

And here's the thing. 99% of cops are good guys. But they feel a need to protect the bad apples like Chauvin.

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

They shouldn't be there for cops, either. In fact, here's a modest solution to police brutality. Instead of the cities having to pay out the nine and ten figure settlements to victims of police brutality, the unions should pay those out of their pension funds. I'm betting they wouldn't be so keen to protect the bad apples after that point.

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.

Wow? Really? Okay, let's look at the "officers being assassinated claim". Using "Officer Down", a Copaganda site not less.

The number of cops killed by gunfire actually DROPPED in 2020.

In 2019 - 51 officers were shot in the line of duty

2019

171 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2019.

www.odmp.org

2020, that number dropped to 46

2020

456 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2020.

www.odmp.org

By way of comparison, 284 officers died of Covid that year.

5 were killed by "Inadvertand gun fire", which is a polite way of saying they were hit by bullets fired by other cops.

This notion that we have swaths of cop being murdered by the bad guys, and this is why they need to put a knee on someone's neck for 9 minutes or pump 16 rounds into a kid who was trying to break into a truck is fucking absurd, and frankly I'm tired of hearing it.

if the cops were REALLY concerned about cops being killed by guns, stand up to the fucking NRA and their nonsense of making it easy for a crazy person with a criminal record to buy a gun.

What does any of this have to do with Trump?

Are you fucking retarded? I explained to you that Covid and the Recession already had people on edge. Do you have some kind of learning disability, Corky?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

And if you ignore that prosecutors -who also know nothing of pathology - say the medical expert is wrong, that would be fucking hypocritical

Again, this was before the trial. The prosecutors criticized Baker’s findings because it did not include neck compression and they wanted that for their charging document.

It is not their job to tell the ME before the trial that his findings are wrong. It’s their job to question the ME during the trial.

I did. The lawyer is simply doing his job. You’re not a lawyer.

Does the lawyer know pathology?

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.

You’re just an idiot who accuses somone of prevarication to avoid answering a question.

 

[irosie91]

It was negligent homicide

not even

And if you ignore that prosecutors -who also know nothing of pathology - say the medical expert is wrong, that would be fucking hypocritical

Again, this was before the trial. The prosecutors criticized Baker’s findings because it did not include neck compression and they wanted that for their charging document.

It is not their job to tell the ME before the trial that his findings are wrong. It’s their job to question the ME during the trial.


Does the lawyer know pathology?

You’re just an idiot who accuses somone of prevarication to avoid answering a question.

there was nothing supporting the diagnosis of asphyxiation on the autopsy findings

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Even if true, how can a lawyer tell an ME he is wrong if he has no knowledge of patholoy?

Knowledge of pathology is the distinction here, which you brought up. Yet you overlook the fact that a lawyer does not know pathology because, what, by simple virtue of being a lawyer, he somehow magically absorbs this knowledge by telling him he’s wrong? How does that work?

Prosecutors question MEs and experts in general precisely because they DON’T know.

 

[irosie91]

Even if true, how can a lawyer tell an ME he is wrong if he has no knowledge of patholoy?

Knowledge of pathology is the distinction here, which you brought up. Yet you overlook the fact that a lawyer does not know pathology because, what, by simple virtue of being a lawyer, he somehow magically absorbs this knowledge by telling him he’s wrong? How does that work?

Prosecutors question MEs and experts in general precisely because they DON’T know.

Some lawyers are smart enough to ASK people who do know

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ghost of a Rider shows his face after having it smeared in his own nonsense.

Trial testimony sealed Chauven's fate. The only question is "when does the next shank come?"

 

[irosie91]

Ghost of a Rider shows his face after having it smeared in his own nonsense.

Trial testimony sealed Chauven's fate. The only question is "when does the next shank come?"

Yes----I blame the pathologist's report

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes----I blame the pathologist's report

Yeah, evidence is a terrible thing in a trial.

 

[irosie91]

Yeah, evidence is a terrible thing in a trial.

there was no evidence. The conclusion was based entirely on a DESCRIPTION
OF THE EVENT----no pathological (that means autopsy results) evidence

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

All of that is evidence, irosie91.

 

[irosie91]

All of that is evidence, irosie91.

all of what? it is not AUTOPSY EVIDENCE---the pathologist drew a conclusion that was not based on AUTOPSY EVIDENCE. Pathologists do PATHOLOGY-----not rumor