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

[GLASNOST]

great, but the cop is in jail for murder even though no one knows that actual cause of death. is that somehow right?

Yeah, what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? We've seen a lot of horn-tooting films about how in the US they go to great lengths to keep the jury out of earshot from the media and even hold court in some far-flung state and county just to avoid prejudiced influence on the jury's decision. But what happened in this one?

 

[Billo_Really]

great, but the cop is in jail for murder even though no one knows that actual cause of death. is that somehow right?

We know the cause of death. It was that man's knee on a black man. I hope that SOB gets killed in prison?

 

[bripat9643]

We know the cause of death. It was that man's knee on a black man. I hope that SOB gets killed in prison?

No, we don't know that, dumbass.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, we don't know that, dumbass.

Yes we do! I would call you a fuckhead, but it's zone 1.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes we do! I would call you a fuckhead, but it's zone 1.

No, we don't know that.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, we don't know that.

Now you do!

 

[bripat9643]

Now you do!

No they don't, turd.

 

[GLASNOST]

We know the cause of death. It was that man's knee on a black man.

So when a white knee is on a black man ... he dies?

 

[SavannahMann]

Yeah, what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? We've seen a lot of horn-tooting films about how in the US they go to great lengths to keep the jury out of earshot from the media and even hold court in some far-flung state and county just to avoid prejudiced influence on the jury's decision. But what happened in this one?

Well it was proven. Let’s review. There are more than 2,000 coroners in the United States. Not one would come forward and say that it was an overdose. Not one. Not even the defense Expert. The Coroner they hired to cast doubt on the case the prosecution presented. So it is 2,000 to zero that it was not an overdose.

Medical Examiner and Coroner Offices, 2018

bjs.ojp.gov

The Prosecution also presented a Forensic Pathologist and a Cardiologist to give their expert opinion on the cause of death. Let’s see about the Cardiologist. A regular Medical Doctor.

There are a million Medical Doctors in the United States. Literally.

Total active doctors in the U.S. by state 2023 | Statista

As of May 2023, the total number of professionally active physicians in the United States amounted to 1,077,115 physicians.

www.statista.com

The defense couldn’t find one. Not one. Not a single solitary one to say it was an overdose. I mean there is a ranking of graduates, and every class has a person finishing dead last. And this individual who is possibly the worst Doctor in the Nation wouldn’t come forward for the paycheck offered by the Defense and say it was an overdose. Not one.

So in addition to the two thousand to zip coroners. We have a million to zero on regular Doctors.

Now to a layman like me. That sounds like it was proven. But let’s look at the claims. Who is making them?

Doctors who are familiar with medical science? No. Coroners who are questioning the conclusions of a peer? No. Nurses? Physicians Assistants? Paramedics?

No. We are down to people who might have taken a First Aid class and possibly got their CPR certificate.

A million Doctors. One of them has to be a White Supremacy believer. The odds demand it. And even that one wouldn’t come out and declare it was obviously an overdose.

So what more do you want to have it proven that Chauvin is guilty? You aren’t happy with a Million Doctors. You aren’t satisfied with all the Coroners. You don’t like the video and witness statements. You don’t like the statements of the Defense Expert.

So what do you want? God himself to descend from Heaven and declare it in every language on Earth? Because at this point, that is about all that hasn’t happened.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes we do! I would call you a fuckhead, but it's zone 1.

We don't know that. I would call you a moron, but it's zone 1.

 

[GLASNOST]

Well it was proven. Let’s review.

OK, let's do that.

There are more than 2,000 coroners in the United States.

That's impressive.

Not one would come forward and say that it was an overdose. Not one. Not even the defense Expert.

Why would they? Who is saying it was an overdose anyway ..... Tommy Tucker from Muleshoe, TX or Jack N'Black from Waynesville, Missoura?

The Coroner they hired to cast doubt on the case the prosecution presented. So it is 2,000 to zero that it was not an overdose.

What is your point?

There are a million Medical Doctors in the United States. Literally.

Again, I'm impressed

The defense couldn’t find one. Not one. Not a single solitary one to say it was an overdose.

I repeat: "Who is saying it was an overdose"?

So what more do you want to have it proven that Chauvin is guilty?

You haven't presented the tinniest amount of "proof". Not one bit of "proof". Not a single solitary bit of "proof".
So, to answer your question about what I want: Proof that Chauvin is guilty. That's what I want.

You aren’t happy with a Million Doctors. You aren’t satisfied with all the Coroners.

No, I'm happy .... I'm satisfied. A million is enough.

So what do you want? God himself to descend from Heaven and declare it in every language on Earth? Because at this point, that is about all that hasn’t happened.

Ahhhhhh, you're talking gibberish. I think the problem is your lack of depth in understanding. I'm pretty sure it's because you've been raised and educated in the two-plane system: Far left - Far right. Democrat - Republican. Black - White. "With us" - "Against us". Chauvin - Overdose. Maybe you're really young, eh?

 

[SavannahMann]

OK, let's do that.

That's impressive.

Why would they? Who is saying it was an overdose anyway ..... Tommy Tucker from Muleshoe, TX or Jack N'Black from Waynesville, Missoura?

What is your point?

Again, I'm impressed

I repeat: "Who is saying it was an overdose"?

You haven't presented the tinniest amount of "proof". Not one bit of "proof". Not a single solitary bit of "proof".

So, to answer your question about what I want: Proof that Chauvin is guilty. That's what I want.

No, I'm happy .... I'm satisfied. A million is enough.

Ahhhhhh, you're talking gibberish. I think the problem is your lack of depth in understanding. I'm pretty sure it's because you've been raised and educated in the two-plane system: Far left - Far right. Democrat - Republican. Black - White. "With us" - "Against us". Chauvin - Overdose. Maybe you're really young, eh?

My friend, you just proved that Chauvin is guilty.

The standard in our system is Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to the Jurors to determine if they have doubts, and if those doubts are reasonable. It is up to the Prosecution to prove that the evidence paints a picture that the Defendant did it. The job of the Defense is to show that the evidence could paint another picture, one where the Defendant did not do whatever it is that they are accused of.

Let’s review for a moment.

The prosecution presented witnesses to introduce evidence and testimony to show what happened that day, and explain the details to the Jury. This is normal and a part of every trial.

The Prosecution began by describing the events using the video footage, and then got down to discussing what the details, the nuances were all about.

The Coroner explained how the death happened. He explained that the pressure on the back of Floyd was sufficient to restrict airflow in such a way as to cause cardiac distress and a subsequent cardiac arrest, heart attack for us laymen, in Floyd.

A Forensic Pathologist went into more detail explaining how she had determined that the Positional Asphyxia had caused this death.

A Cardiologist explained how he had calculated the amount of force on Floyd from Chauvin, and further explained how this would certainly restrict airflow to the victim in such a way as to cause a Cardiac Arrest.

The Police Officer who trained Chauvin and re-certified him in the use of arrest techniques as part of their annual training said that the policy within the department was to use this technique only until the suspect was restrained. This Officer said that he absolutely told Chauvin about that during the class, and made a point to emphasize the policy to all the attendees.

The officer who conducted the certification process for First Responder Medical Treatment testified that they had trained Chauvin, and that part of that class was the information that just because someone can speak, doesn’t mean they are actually breathing, as they might be getting insufficient air to sustain life. Protecting the airway was vital.

Worse for Chauvin, was the fact that the First Responder Trainer went through the steps that Chauvin was taught to perform if a victim is not breathing or in respiratory distress. Chauvin did exactly none of those steps.

The Prosecution showed that Chauvin was taught what was right, and chose to do what he wanted instead. To kneel on Floyd regardless of the fact that he knew it was dangerous. Further, the prosecution was able to show that Chauvin was taught to perform certain steps in a medical emergency, and performed exactly none of them. This medical emergency was caused by Chauvin’s actions of kneeling on Floyd well past the point where it was authorized.

So the Prosecution has shown how Floyd died. With testimony from three experts. The prosecution also showed that Chauvin was told that the actions he took on that fateful day were dangerous, and were a violation of policy.

Now, for the Defense, their job is to present the Reasonable Doubt. They could not show that Floyd was combative and required excessive force to keep him from striking out, or get him restrained. He was restrained before Chauvin got to the scene.

The Defense presented a Coroner to contradict the findings of the Prosecution witnesses. This Coroner said that he would rule the death as undetermined. Undetermined, meaning that all they knew was that Floyd was dead. They couldn’t say how he had died.

The Defense Coroner said that he would have considered things that the Prosecution Coroner and experts hadn’t. Such as the amount of car exhaust that Floyd might have been breathing because of the running vehicle nearby.

As far as reasonable doubt goes, that’s pretty weak. In fact, it was so weak that when the Coroner finished, he found more than a hundred of his peers were so shocked by the claims that they wrote Baltimore to recommend that every case this fellow had worked on be reviewed since he was not using medical science to make his determinations, but was using what could best be described as Junk Science.

It is the reasonable doubt the Defense was going for. A way to paint the picture using the same evidence to show a different possibility. Or a way to show that evidence that the Prosecution had not considered, was vital to finding the real cause of death.

This thread began with the claim that Floyd obviously overdosed. That is the explanation to show that Chauvin was innocent. That would be a good bit of proof causing a great deal of doubt. If the Defense had presented such a witness it would have absolutely created some doubt, perhaps enough to get the Not Guilty verdict that team Chauvin desired.

That Defense expert we mentioned above. Let’s get back to him. The defense was unable to get the Prosecution witnesses to moderate their views. So now it is time for the Prosecution to question the Defense Expert. You remember the one who wanted to say that the car exhaust might have been to blame? That one. The only one that Chauvin put up to counter the testimony of the prosecution.

So here we go, the cross examination. The Defense Expert Coroner admitted he had no information on how much car exhaust would be put out, and didn’t know which way the wind was blowing, or how much would be present where Floyd was laying in respect to the exhaust pipe. The Defense Expert said he had no knowledge of how much exhaust the EPA would consider safe, or dangerous.

Ok, so the Defense Expert was just shown to be pulling things out of his ass. It gets worse. A lot worse for Chauvin.

The Defense Expert then stated under cross examination that as a Medical Doctor he could not recommend that someone kneel on another person for minutes at a time because it was potentially dangerous. The Coroner for the Defense further stated that as a Medical Expert, he could not recommend that someone continue kneeling after the individual had lost consciousness. So far each question from the prosecutor has destroyed the entire defense claim. That Floyd died from reasons unrelated to Chauvin’s actions.

The Prosecutor next asked if the Medical Expert would suggest or endorse that someone keep kneeling on an individual when they were unable to find a pulse. The Doctor admitted that as a medical expert he could not endorse that. Next the Prosecutor asked if as a Doctor would he suggest or recommend that CPR be started on a victim who had no pulse.

The Doctor at this point is completely screwed. He says yes. He would recommend that CPR be started.

The Prosecutor handed the hammer to the Doctor, the one to drive the last nail into Chauvin’s coffin. The Prosecutor asked if it is possible that Floyd would be alive today if Chauvin had begun CPR or allowed it to be started when they could not find a pulse.

The Defense Coroner said yes it is possible, CPR has saved many lives. Possible, not definite, not certain. Possible.

Now, in cross examination the Doctor confirmed that all of Floyd’s actions were dangerous, and that he knew they were dangerous, because he had been trained to know they were dangerous.

So Reasonable Doubt is out the window. Using the established evidence, Reasonable Doubt is gone.

We know how Floyd died. We know it is possible to have someone die that way, hundreds have died that way over the last few years before Floyd. We know Chauvin was taught not to do that. We know Chauvin was taught to do things differently. We know that Chauvin did not do those things. We know that the alternate explanation, the possibility of a reasonable doubt, has been destroyed by the guy proposing it.

So all that is left, the entire purpose behind this thread, was that they covered up something. The claim is they covered up the Overdose. And the Overdose was the real reason that Floyd died, and that makes Chauvin innocent. You’ve already agreed that there was no overdose. You correctly pointed out that I beat that well past death. But I wanted it absolutely certain that there was no way to claim that an Overdose was a valid claim. You agreed. There is no way it was an overdose. Window closed. Zero chance.

So what possible alternate explanation remains? Next responses we can compare and contrast with the most famous Not Guilty verdict, the OJ trial.

 

[GLASNOST]

My friend, you just proved that Chauvin is guilty.

Yeah, you're right. I proved it. I saw him do it. Case closed. Who's the next kindergartener who wants to join the adults in a debate?

 

[forkup]

Yeah, you're right. I proved it. I saw him do it. Case closed. Who's the next kindergartener who wants to join the adults in a debate?

Do you mean it's adult to simply ignore everything that's presented by someone as " no proof" simply because recognizing that there was actual evidence presented in court that an entire jury considered enough "proof" to come to a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't fit your narrative?


It seems to me that it's you. Or as you stated someone like "Tommy Tucker, tx" that isn't satisfied with the proof. While in the real world, in court. There was enough "proof."

Just because you refuse to accept actual fact, that doesn't mean that those facts don't exist.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yeah, you're right. I proved it. I saw him do it. Case closed. Who's the next kindergartener who wants to join the adults in a debate?

I see you are afraid of my post. I did just what you asked and you run from it. What does it feel like to be so frightened of words? So frightened of truth? So terrified of facts. I left an opportunity for you. To tell us why you think there is reasonable doubt. You did not.

I proved it. By reporting on the actual trial and the words of witnesses for the prosecution and defense. I proved that Chauvin did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what considering all that testimony is the basis for your doubt? Are you as pathetic as a child. Just just don’t want to believe? Or is there some basis for your doubt? Some information that hasn’t been addressed?

I am willing to listen and consider. I seriously doubt that you have anything that is not founded in prejudice. But I admit it is possible that you see things differently. So help me out. Tell me why you doubt the guilt of Chauvin when even his defense team could offer nothing to cast doubt upon his guilt? When he pled guilty to the federal crimes, what makes you think he lied?

 

[forkup]

I see you are afraid of my post. I did just what you asked and you run from it. What does it feel like to be so frightened of words? So frightened of truth? So terrified of facts. I left an opportunity for you. To tell us why you think there is reasonable doubt. You did not.

I proved it. By reporting on the actual trial and the words of witnesses for the prosecution and defense. I proved that Chauvin did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what considering all that testimony is the basis for your doubt? Are you as pathetic as a child. Just just don’t want to believe? Or is there some basis for your doubt? Some information that hasn’t been addressed?

I am willing to listen and consider. I seriously doubt that you have anything that is not founded in prejudice. But I admit it is possible that you see things differently. So help me out. Tell me why you doubt the guilt of Chauvin when even his defense team could offer nothing to cast doubt upon his guilt? When he pled guilty to the federal crimes, what makes you think he lied?

I'm afraid someone like Glasnost won't be able to help you out.

In order to help you out he runs the risk of needing to become specific. Specifics can be argued.

Glasnost is pushing a narrative. Narratives are much harder to disprove if you ignore all specifics.

 

[GLASNOST]

Do you mean it's adult to simply ignore everything that's presented by someone as " no proof".....

Call it what you like. I've wasted more than enough time trying to teach children.

 

[GLASNOST]

I see you are afraid of my post.

That must be it.

 

[forkup]

Call it what you like. I've wasted more than enough time trying to teach children.

Children who cite the court case. As opposed to you who simply offers his personal opinion?

Not for nothing Glasnost. I think it is actually much more adult to try to use what is actually presented as evidence in a court of law when discussing what constitutes "proof".

If you think the opinion of some dude online, who didn't sit through the actual case is more valuable that's your choice.

 

[Redfish]

We know the cause of death. It was that man's knee on a black man. I hope that SOB gets killed in prison?

so the fact that he had enough fentanyl in his system to kill him had nothing to do with his death? How can you be so fricken positive about that? Floyd was a thug and druggie, not a hero as you libs want to make him, the cop over stepped procedure, but did he kill him? sadly we will never really know.