Zone1 The officer did not murder Floyd, should he get a new trial?

Show me where it says the cause of death was a knee on the back of the neck. You know it was partially on his shoulders. It is what the cops are taught to do and it is proven not to be a death hold.

I hate to quote a movie like this. But it’s amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.

IMG_0816.jpeg

Literally the header of the first page. Literally.

As for safe? Let’s see.


A report for Law Enforcement on the dangers of Positional Asphyxiation. Written in June 1995. Twenty five years before Chauvin knelt on Floyd. 25 years. A Quarter Century.

The Chief of Police testifying that Chauvin violated policy by staying on Floyd after he had been restrained.


An article showing that Minneapolis police had rendered 44 people unconscious by kneeling on them the “right” way according to you.


How much more do you want?

How about a Cardiologist, you know, an expert on heart and lung and keeping them working?


How much more will you demand? I’m curious since the records of the trial are easily accessible and you could learn for yourself instead of demanding someone prove it to you.

So I’m going to take a page from your book. Explain how the Justice Department was wrong in 1995. Explain how 44 people lost consciousness while being knelt upon by Minneapolis Police. Explain how a Cardiologist was wrong about how hearts and lungs work.

I told you several responses before. All of this was covered in the trial. And it was all rejected by the Jury.
 
I hate to quote a movie like this. But it’s amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.

View attachment 848568
Literally the header of the first page. Literally.

As for safe? Let’s see.


A report for Law Enforcement on the dangers of Positional Asphyxiation. Written in June 1995. Twenty five years before Chauvin knelt on Floyd. 25 years. A Quarter Century.

The Chief of Police testifying that Chauvin violated policy by staying on Floyd after he had been restrained.


An article showing that Minneapolis police had rendered 44 people unconscious by kneeling on them the “right” way according to you.


How much more do you want?

How about a Cardiologist, you know, an expert on heart and lung and keeping them working?


How much more will you demand? I’m curious since the records of the trial are easily accessible and you could learn for yourself instead of demanding someone prove it to you.

So I’m going to take a page from your book. Explain how the Justice Department was wrong in 1995. Explain how 44 people lost consciousness while being knelt upon by Minneapolis Police. Explain how a Cardiologist was wrong about how hearts and lungs work.

I told you several responses before. All of this was covered in the trial. And it was all rejected by the Jury.

I hate to quote a movie like this. But it’s amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.

View attachment 848568
Literally the header of the first page. Literally.

As for safe? Let’s see.


A report for Law Enforcement on the dangers of Positional Asphyxiation. Written in June 1995. Twenty five years before Chauvin knelt on Floyd. 25 years. A Quarter Century.

The Chief of Police testifying that Chauvin violated policy by staying on Floyd after he had been restrained.


An article showing that Minneapolis police had rendered 44 people unconscious by kneeling on them the “right” way according to you.


How much more do you want?

How about a Cardiologist, you know, an expert on heart and lung and keeping them working?


How much more will you demand? I’m curious since the records of the trial are easily accessible and you could learn for yourself instead of demanding someone prove it to you.

So I’m going to take a page from your book. Explain how the Justice Department was wrong in 1995. Explain how 44 people lost consciousness while being knelt upon by Minneapolis Police. Explain how a Cardiologist was wrong about how hearts and lungs work.

I told you several responses before. All of this was covered in the trial. And it was all rejected by the Jury.
There is this. You think they could make up their mind?

Screenshot_20231025-163146_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
So the DOJ and Cardiologist are wrong? You are motivated by a desired outcome. Not truth.
It said no life-threatening injuries. What about that don't you understand. Did you see the amount of drugs in his body? You know he had a bad heart right?
 
He moved in a fast way that looked like he was reaching for a weapon,

Yeah, every movement he made was following the cops directives. The coo panicked and almost killed him for following his instructions.

  • The department said he was wrong -- they fired him.
  • The DA said he was wrong -- they charged him.
  • The criminal court said he was wrong -- he is convicted and still in prison.
  • The civil court said he was wrong -- he was paid out.
  • He said he was wrong -- he apologized to the victim and said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

Only a special kind of retard would still say it was a justified shoot.
 
It said no life-threatening injuries. What about that don't you understand. Did you see the amount of drugs in his body? You know he had a bad heart right?

Yes. Unlike you I followed the trial and heard all of this before.

Do you know that it is hard to determine a lethal dose of drugs? People who are addicted require a higher dose because they build a tolerance to the drugs. Not even the Defense Expert claimed it was drugs that killed Floyd. The long history of drug use clearly showed a much higher tolerance level. That’s the addiction question. An amount that is lethal to a person who doesn’t use, wouldn’t even curb the jitters of a serious addict.

But of course you know all of this. I mean you are an expert in drug levels in people aren’t you?

I noticed you utterly ignored the testimony of the Cardiologist. Why? You won’t even admit that there was one at the trial. You ignore the Coroner for the County and his testimony and explanation. You ignore the Forensic Coroner who examined all the tests and autopsy results and made the same exact conclusion.

You even ignore the testimony and conclusions of the Defense Coroner.

What I can’t figure out is why you keep ranting about us being less safe. Are you suggesting one specific cop is the difference between a society based upon law and outright anarchy? What happens if Chauvin retires? Does the city start burning immediately or does it take a couple weeks for word to spread?

Crime is a little higher. But it is nowhere near where it was in 1990.


To hear you guys talk it sounds like the script for a Death Wish movie. Rapes and murders on every street every hour of the day.

So to repeat my earlier question. Why was the Cardiologist wrong? Why were none of the coroners convinced that it was an overdose? Did they lack your medical expertise?
 
Yeah, every movement he made was following the cops directives. The coo panicked and almost killed him for following his instructions.

  • The department said he was wrong -- they fired him.
  • The DA said he was wrong -- they charged him.
  • The criminal court said he was wrong -- he is convicted and still in prison.
  • The civil court said he was wrong -- he was paid out.
  • He said he was wrong -- he apologized to the victim and said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

Only a special kind of retard would still say it was a justified shoot.
That's funny because you are a special type of retard lol
 
It said no life-threatening injuries. What about that don't you understand. Did you see the amount of drugs in his body? You know he had a bad heart right?

Nice strawman you're fighting. He wasn't convicted for causing life-threatening injuries. He was convicted for killing Floyd.
 
Yes. Unlike you I followed the trial and heard all of this before.

Do you know that it is hard to determine a lethal dose of drugs? People who are addicted require a higher dose because they build a tolerance to the drugs. Not even the Defense Expert claimed it was drugs that killed Floyd. The long history of drug use clearly showed a much higher tolerance level. That’s the addiction question. An amount that is lethal to a person who doesn’t use, wouldn’t even curb the jitters of a serious addict.

But of course you know all of this. I mean you are an expert in drug levels in people aren’t you?

I noticed you utterly ignored the testimony of the Cardiologist. Why? You won’t even admit that there was one at the trial. You ignore the Coroner for the County and his testimony and explanation. You ignore the Forensic Coroner who examined all the tests and autopsy results and made the same exact conclusion.

You even ignore the testimony and conclusions of the Defense Coroner.

What I can’t figure out is why you keep ranting about us being less safe. Are you suggesting one specific cop is the difference between a society based upon law and outright anarchy? What happens if Chauvin retires? Does the city start burning immediately or does it take a couple weeks for word to spread?

Crime is a little higher. But it is nowhere near where it was in 1990.


To hear you guys talk it sounds like the script for a Death Wish movie. Rapes and murders on every street every hour of the day.

So to repeat my earlier question. Why was the Cardiologist wrong? Why were none of the coroners convinced that it was an overdose? Did they lack your medical expertise?
There was a lot of pressure on these people to come up with a conviction of somebody. It's people like you that are responsible for our low level of protection from police in this country now and the high crime rate.
 
Yes. Unlike you I followed the trial and heard all of this before.

Do you know that it is hard to determine a lethal dose of drugs? People who are addicted require a higher dose because they build a tolerance to the drugs. Not even the Defense Expert claimed it was drugs that killed Floyd. The long history of drug use clearly showed a much higher tolerance level. That’s the addiction question. An amount that is lethal to a person who doesn’t use, wouldn’t even curb the jitters of a serious addict.

But of course you know all of this. I mean you are an expert in drug levels in people aren’t you?

I noticed you utterly ignored the testimony of the Cardiologist. Why? You won’t even admit that there was one at the trial. You ignore the Coroner for the County and his testimony and explanation. You ignore the Forensic Coroner who examined all the tests and autopsy results and made the same exact conclusion.

You even ignore the testimony and conclusions of the Defense Coroner.

What I can’t figure out is why you keep ranting about us being less safe. Are you suggesting one specific cop is the difference between a society based upon law and outright anarchy? What happens if Chauvin retires? Does the city start burning immediately or does it take a couple weeks for word to spread?

Crime is a little higher. But it is nowhere near where it was in 1990.


To hear you guys talk it sounds like the script for a Death Wish movie. Rapes and murders on every street every hour of the day.

So to repeat my earlier question. Why was the Cardiologist wrong? Why were none of the coroners convinced that it was an overdose? Did they lack your medical expertise?
You never did explain what you don't understand about no life threatening injuries.
 
You never did explain what you don't understand about no life threatening injuries.

Ah, so if someone drowns someone else, effectively killing them without leaving any "life threatening injuries," that means they didn't murder them and shouldn't go to jail.

Like I said, nice strawman you're fighting.
 
I think Floyd killed himself. The corrupt doj made sure they had a pawn in play

Ok. Let me get this straight. Just so I understand. In 1995, the DOJ, in an effort to set up Chauvin, a man who was in High School at the time, released a report outlining the dangers of Positional Asphyxiation. I’m sure they were advised by time traveling aliens. Because I can’t imagine how else this could have happened.

Do I need to continue? Really?
 
There was a lot of pressure on these people to come up with a conviction of somebody. It's people like you that are responsible for our low level of protection from police in this country now and the high crime rate.

I covered it. The crime rate has gone up over the last couple years, but that is expected with the economic situation. Why can’t you admit it is lower now than the 1990’s, when cops didn’t have these types of cases.
 

Forum List

Back
Top