George Floyd/Protests/Peace/Riots/Chaos

GhostGirl

Rookie
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
19
Here's the deal. You guys can argue the points of the case all you want, it really doesn't even matter. This is the way it is. This is a show trial. There's not a jury in the United States that could or WOULD find him innocent. Derek Chauvin will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison. It's a travesty. This isn't about ANYTHING but politics.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,552
Here's the deal. You guys can argue the points of the case all you want, it really doesn't even matter. This is the way it is. This is a show trial. There's not a jury in the United States that could or WOULD find him innocent. Derek Chauvin will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison. It's a travesty. This isn't about ANYTHING but politics.
Have you been following the trial?

Two medical examiners declared Floyd's death a homicide. More importantly, they stated his drug intoxication levels were lower than the average amount in typical DUI cases. In other words, the defense's case literally got blown up.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
Have you been following the trial?

Two medical examiners declared Floyd's death a homicide. More importantly, they stated his drug intoxication levels were lower than the average amount in typical DUI cases. In other words, the defense's case literally got blown up.
Homicide being a medical, not legal term. The medical examiner said that Floyd was essentially medically incapable of surviving the encounter with the police, due to his heart and drug levels, not that he was killed. And he didn’t say his drug levels were lower than typical dui levels. The prosecution said that there had been dui cases where people had higher levels, but Floyd was on the above 2/3 of them, and the me said that he had certified deaths at 1/3 of Floyd’s levels, and that the drugs were significant in his death. You need to pay closer attention.

Basically the prosecutions argument was that the word homicide was used, even though the medical examiner spent his testimony explaining that that’s not what that meant in the usage of the term. Looks like you fell for that lol, what they wanted from the jury.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
The most significant development in the final two days of the prosecutions case - they eventually decided to try to prove asphyxiation as the cause of death, and had three doctors testify that this was the cause from looking at the video. However, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Floyd testified last, after them, and made it clear that there was no evidence for asphyxiation and didnt mention it on the death report, nor did he believe that caused his death. Right there you have a contradiction with the prosecutions own expert witnesses, enough for reasonable doubt. The defense hasn’t even called a witness or presented evidence yet, and the prosecutions case isnt strong enough for a conviction.
 






Last edited:

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,073
Homicide being a medical, not legal term. The medical examiner said that Floyd was essentially medically incapable of surviving the encounter with the police, due to his heart and drug levels, not that he was killed. And he didn’t say his drug levels were lower than typical dui levels. The prosecution said that there had been dui cases where people had higher levels, but Floyd was on the above 2/3 of them, and the me said that he had certified deaths at 1/3 of Floyd’s levels, and that the drugs were significant in his death. You need to pay closer attention.

Basically the prosecutions argument was that the word homicide was used, even though the medical examiner spent his testimony explaining that that’s not what that meant in the usage of the term. Looks like you fell for that lol, what they wanted from the jury.
You can’t have it both ways - claim Floyd is a long term drug addict in one breathe and then claim that the amount of fentanyl in his system should have killed a normal person in the next. A long term drug addict isn’t a normal person and the amount of drugs needed to kill them is way higher then what’s needed to kill someone who isn’t a drug user. I’m going to assume you’ve never watched anyone overdose on opiates - that isn’t what an overdose looks like. That isn’t how overdoses happen. Sorry.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
You can’t have it both ways - claim Floyd is a long term drug addict in one breathe and then claim that the amount of fentanyl in his system should have killed a normal person in the next. A long term drug addict isn’t a normal person and the amount of drugs needed to kill them is way higher then what’s needed to kill someone who isn’t a drug user. I’m going to assume you’ve never watched anyone overdose on opiates - that isn’t what an overdose looks like. That isn’t how overdoses happen. Sorry.
Nice hypothetical, thankfully the girlfriend testified that he had been clean for three months, so it means nothing in this case.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,073
Nice hypothetical, thankfully the girlfriend testified that he had been clean for three months, so it means nothing in this case.
What means nothing? Again - I don’t know if you know how any of this works. Have you ever seen someone overdose on drugs? That’s not what it looks like and that’s not how it happens at all. But anything to shrug off responsibility right?
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
What means nothing? Again - I don’t know if you know how any of this works. Have you ever seen someone overdose on drugs? That’s not what it looks like and that’s not how it happens at all. But anything to shrug off responsibility right?
Being a long time user means nothing if you’ve stopped for 3 months, in fact, it’s the most common way for people to overdose. The drugs were a contributing factor, not the sole cause of death, although the me testified that if he found someone with those levels of drugs, and no other explanation, they would be sufficient for a cause of death, as would Floyd’s hypertension as would Floyd’s arteriosclerosis. But anything to justify the media narrative setting up liberals for more unjustified outrage, right?
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,552
Homicide being a medical, not legal term. The medical examiner said that Floyd was essentially medically incapable of surviving the encounter with the police, due to his heart and drug levels, not that he was killed. And he didn’t say his drug levels were lower than typical dui levels. The prosecution said that there had been dui cases where people had higher levels, but Floyd was on the above 2/3 of them, and the me said that he had certified deaths at 1/3 of Floyd’s levels, and that the drugs were significant in his death. You need to pay closer attention.

Basically the prosecutions argument was that the word homicide was used, even though the medical examiner spent his testimony explaining that that’s not what that meant in the usage of the term. Looks like you fell for that lol, what they wanted from the jury.
You are either misquoting or misleading based on your own bias. There is a transcript from what was said, so show me the direct quotes and stop playing games.

If that sounds rude, it's not. You were also the one who said George Floyd ingested a ton of meth, which was directly contradicted by the medical examiners. He had so little meth in his system, that it barely registered on a toxicology report. Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but you can't seem to keep a single fact straight.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
You are either misquoting or misleading based on your own bias. There is a transcript from what was said, so show me the direct quotes and stop playing games.

If that sounds rude, it's not. You were also the one who said George Floyd ingested a ton of meth, which was directly contradicted by the medical examiners. He had so little meth in his system, that it barely registered on a toxicology report. Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but you can't seem to keep a single fact straight.
“Do my work for me so I don’t have to pay attention”
no. I summarized the facts for you without my own perspective, pretty nice if you ask me

and there is no safe level of meth. Direct quote from 2 of the medical examiners
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,552
“Do my work for me so I don’t have to pay attention”
no. I summarized the facts for you without my own perspective, pretty nice if you ask me

and there is no safe level of meth. Direct quote from 2 of the medical examiners
I've read the transcripts, and they are the literal opposite of what you're saying.

"Andrew Baker: So, my opinion remains unchanged. It's what I put on the death certificate last June. That's cardiopulmonary arrest law complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. That was my top line then. It would stay my top line now."

"Dr. Lindsey Thomas: There's no evidence to suggest he would've died that night, except for the interactions with law enforcement."

So as I stated before. The argument that Floyd would have died from his own drug use is a complete fabrication and holds zero water. More importantly, nobody said there's a safe level of meth. You are either trying to construct a strawman argument or are moving the goalposts.

The way that you try to turn it around on me reeks of narcissism BTW. Between your own contradictory statements and the fact that you have been proven wrong many times, such a level of delusion is rarely displayed. Especially with such a lack of self-awareness. You have clearly picked the cop's side and will continue to act as their attack dog.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
I've read the transcripts, and they are the literal opposite of what you're saying.

"Andrew Baker: So, my opinion remains unchanged. It's what I put on the death certificate last June. That's cardiopulmonary arrest law complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. That was my top line then. It would stay my top line now."

"Dr. Lindsey Thomas: There's no evidence to suggest he would've died that night, except for the interactions with law enforcement."

So as I stated before. The argument that Floyd would have died from his own drug use is a complete fabrication and holds zero water. More importantly, nobody said there's a safe level of meth. You are either trying to construct a strawman argument or are moving the goalposts.

The way that you try to turn it around on me reeks of narcissism BTW. Between your own contradictory statements and the fact that you have been proven wrong many times, such a level of delusion is rarely displayed. Especially with such a lack of self-awareness. You have clearly picked the cop's side and will continue to act as their attack dog.
I’m not contradicting anything. you haven’t even watched the trial. Did you read the full transcript, or just two lines, that you interpreted, incorrectly and without context? Before you start throwing out accusations against me, you better make sure youre not sounding like an idiot by pretending you know something that you don’t. Also, those are two lines from two totally different testimonies.
"Andrew Baker: So, my opinion remains unchanged. It's what I put on the death certificate last June. That's cardiopulmonary arrest law complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. That was my top line then. It would stay my top line now."
all this means is his heart stopped functioning during a restraint by the law enforcement. COMPLICATING he explained, means, taking place during the time of. Its not saying the restraint caused it.

Dr. Lindsey Thomas: There's no evidence to suggest he would've died that night, except for the interactions with law enforcement.
this is just a retired doctors opinion. It was contradicted by other doctors, namely the one who did the report, so it holds no water, who testified that Floyds heart had two independent causes of death, and a toxicity level high enough to kill him. She also almost had a fit when the defense brought up a study that showed in over 1 million arrests and 3000 prone position holds, there was not a single death, and the judge had to strike her incoherent shrieking from the record. So there is evidence he would have died that night.

what else did you have your panties in a knot about? Read my quote above, it explained it pretty well and you don’t seem to have understood it yet. Maybe try reading it out loud or google some of the words.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
The way that you try to turn it around on me reeks of narcissism BTW. Between your own contradictory statements and the fact that you have been proven wrong many times, such a level of delusion is rarely displayed. Especially with such a lack of self-awareness. You have clearly picked the cop's side and will continue to act as their attack dog.
Your own proclamations of knowledge about something that you don’t take the time to even watch the proceedings yourself, along with your desire to see a potentially innocent man go to jail reeks to me of psychopathy, but hey. I might have been incorrect about some small details, which I can easily acknowledge and amend, you on the other hand have to ignore entire categories of facts and statements to stick to your view.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
You are either misquoting or misleading based on your own bias. There is a transcript from what was said, so show me the direct quotes and stop playing games.

If that sounds rude, it's not. You were also the one who said George Floyd ingested a ton of meth, which was directly contradicted by the medical examiners. He had so little meth in his system, that it barely registered on a toxicology report. Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but you can't seem to keep a single fact straight.
here is the direct quote, with the same information I summarized. I will accept your withdrawl of the name calling and unkind words if you’d like to chat about this trial. If not because you don’t have time to figure out what youre talking about, feel free to simply not weigh in to confuse conversation, or preface your subsequent post with, a heading, something to the effect of, I am giving my opinion but I have no idea what im talking about because I didn’t watch the trial, but I’m mad so I want to say things, or something like that
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
This guy summarizes an extremely important point in this video. one of the prosecutions only really compelling witnesses, sought to prove that chauvins knee being on Floyd’s upper back caused his death due to positional asphyxiation. (Yes, at this point in the trial, the prosecution has moved to goal posts from the “knee on neck” narrative that clearly wasn’t true from other camera angles). However, if the knee was on his back, it undermines the claim that chauvin acted negligently with a depraved mind, because restraining someone in that way doesn’t have any of the outrage that the liberal mob claimed for the last year and it doesn’t align with the charges, which are that he caused his death due to criminal negligence.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,301
This trial is completely unique. Usually it is the defense that has to improvise strange, outlandish or creative perspectives to defend someone who was arrested and charged with clear crimes. This trial saw a man arrested because a video on facebook made it appear his knee was on a subjects neck, while onlookers screamed and swore their outrage at him, leading to the media publishing it and pushing a story that it was intentional murder. Most people who viewed it, who simply don’t take the time to investigate further and cannot question their initial emotional reaction because people are addicted to outrage and the subjective justice of the screaming mob, did not know that the officers had done everything according to protocol, had gotten him help minutes before, and that Floyd died due to his own health conditions.

Floyd was saying he couldnt breathe before he was on the ground. He was foaming at the mouth. He was erratic and confused. His eyes were vibrating. He asked to be layed on the ground, after 3 officers failed to get him in a squad car. The officers monitored his pulse and breathing. They used holds that they had been taught and are used all the time for someone acting in these ways. Prosecution witnesses testified that they would have been justified in tazing him, but they elected for a lower use of force. They actually had him in a more severe hold for the first moments when he was on the ground, but moved to a more comfortable hold for him when he started to merely passively resist. Floyd could breath easily while he was on the ground, and can be seen breathing deeply, yelling, and was breathing at 22 breaths per minute. His lack of oxygen could be explained by fentynol, because “the main reason fentynol is so deadly, is because it suppresses the respiratory system”, as the er doctor, a witness for the prosecution, told the court.

Now the prosecution has to weave a case out of that outrage, but it simply does not hold up in objective court. People who only read the mainstream media takes on the case won’t know this, because they often don’t even mention the defense.
 






Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
5,092
Here's the deal. You guys can argue the points of the case all you want, it really doesn't even matter. This is the way it is. This is a show trial. There's not a jury in the United States that could or WOULD find him innocent. Derek Chauvin will be found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison. It's a travesty. This isn't about ANYTHING but politics.
It’s another narrative to push racial divide
 






Top