lightseeker
Star
- Joined
- May 18, 2018
- Messages
- 4,046
Have you been following the trial?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Nice hypothetical, thankfully the girlfriend testified that he had been clean for three months, so it means nothing in this case.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.
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?Nice hypothetical, thankfully the girlfriend testified that he had been clean for three months, so it means nothing in this case.
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?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?
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.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.
“Do my work for me so I don’t have to pay attention”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.
I've read the transcripts, and they are the literal opposite of what you're saying.“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’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.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.
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."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."
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.Dr. Lindsey Thomas: There's no evidence to suggest he would've died that night, except for the interactions with law enforcement.
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.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.
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 thatYou 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.
It’s another narrative to push racial divideHere'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.