[Puffer Fish]

You have misunderstood.

You earlier claimed that Covid was one of the possible reasons for the death of Mr. Floyd.

Medical examiners have shown that Mr. Floyd did not die of Covid or anything related despite testing positive.

I disproved your claim.

I think you are misrepresenting things.
This comes down to ambiguities in the English language.

I claimed that Covid was a very likely and probable factor that contributed to this death, and that it is likely he would not have died if he did not have Covid.

When you say "Medical examiners have shown that Mr. Floyd did not die of Covid", what exactly does that mean?

What exactly does it mean to "die of" something?

Claiming that Floyd would have still died even if he did not have Covid is not the same thing as claiming that Covid alone would have killed him, in the absence of other contributing things.

So what exactly are you claiming the medical examiner "showed"?

And did the medical examiner even actually "show" that, or did he just testify and say something, something the jury may have misinterpreted and not correctly understood. Just like you now seem to be doing.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

The medical examiner determined that your claim is wrong when it claims that “Covid was a very likely and probable factor that contributed to this death, and that it is likely he would not have died if he did not have Covid.”

[Rich]

There is no doubt in my mind that he did not intend to kill George Floyd.

Then its not murder by definition. A definition that is understood though out the English speaking world. Just because the legal jurisdiction decided to call it murder does not make it so. Any more than the legal code of the US Virgin Islands made having sex with a seventeen year old woman into paedophilia.

[ingliz]

Then it's not murder by definition

It doesn't have to be if your conduct is so reckless that it is punishable as murder.

[MadMonk]

Then its not murder by definition. A definition that is understood though out the English speaking world. Just because the legal jurisdiction decided to call it murder does not make it so. Any more than the legal code of the US Virgin Islands made having sex with a seventeen year old woman into paedophilia.

What Is the Legal Definition of Murder?
Under the common law (law originating from custom and court decisions rather than statutes), murder was an intentional killing that was:

unlawful (in other words, not legally justified), and committed with "malice aforethought."
Malice aforethought doesn't mean that a killer has to have acted out of spite or hate. It exists if a defendant intends to kill someone without legal justification or excuse. In addition, in most states, malice aforethought isn't limited to intentional killings. It can also exist if the killer:

intentionally inflicts serious bodily harm that causes the victim's death, or behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death.

In today's society, murder is defined by statute rather than common law. Though today's statutes derive from common law, one has to look to these statutes for important distinctions—like the difference between first- and second-degree murder.

Extreme, reckless disregard for life. Sounds about right.

What Is Murder? Is Murder Different From Homicide?

[Rich]

It doesn't have to be if your conduct is so reckless that it is punishable as murder.

Just because its manslaughter does not mean that every man slaughter case has to be punished less severely than every murder case. It doesn't mean that you can't even apply the death penalty for man slaughter. You don't even have to use the terms manslaughter and murder in your code for criminal homicide. The terms come out of traditional fantasies about an absolute God given morality. But if we're going to use them

For me murder is illegal premeditated homicide.

A lot of you seem to want it to mean, homicide that I feel particularly outraged by.

[ingliz]

if we're going to use them

We are not using them.

But US laws concerning killing another human being in circumstances showing extreme recklessness function much the same as the common law's depraved heart murder rule.

What is Depraved Heart Murder?

It is where an individual under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engages in conduct that creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

[Rich]

What is Depraved Heart Murder?)

An idiotic American term for manslaughter.

[Puffer Fish]

The medical examiner determined that your claim is wrong when it claims that “Covid was a very likely and probable factor that contributed to this death, and that it is likely he would not have died if he did not have Covid.”

I think we're just going around in circles. I have already explained how that is just semantics and an equivocation fallacy error, dependent on the exact meaning of "determined".

If YOU seem to be confused about it, and can't understand even after my repeated attempts to explain it to you, then it wouldn't be surprising if the jury wasn't able to understand the difference either, and came to a logical error as a result.


I am claiming he DID NOT determine that. And when they say he did, they mean it in a very different sense from a scientist who determines something in an experiment. That was only his OPINION and conclusion he personally came to. Just like a judge "determines" things even when there is no proof, no way for the judge to logically prove it, and the judge can't know for sure. The medical examiner's finding is a legal determination, which is different from the normal understanding of a determination, like a detective solving a crime, or a doctor determining what is wrong with a patient. It's common and ordinary for a medical examiner (examining a dead body) to make a legal determination as to cause of death without going so far as actually determining it. The terminologies in these two different situations do not have the same meanings.

The legal "determination" of the medical examiner as to cause of death should not have been treated like medical or legal proof in a criminal trial.
The jury, just like you, did not understand the difference.

Given the same medical facts in this case, two different people could easily come to different "determinations".

What you don't understand is it's not like they just hand the medical examiner the body and ask him to figure out how it died. They first give the medical examiner the detective's police report. So when the medical examiner makes a "determination", in some way he is playing the role of a jury.

Maybe what they should have done is ask the medical examiner questions like whether it was possible to know how likely the death would have been if there had not been additional underlying medical factors.



Another piece of semantics and equivocation fallacy is that "cause of death" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "contributing factor" in death.
For example, someone could drink a large quantity of alcohol, to the point of sickness and unconsciousness, and then choke on their own vomit. The "cause of death" is asphyxiation, but that does not mean the alcohol was not the main factor causing the death.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think we're just going around in circles. I have already explained how that is just semantics and an equivocation fallacy error, dependent on the exact meaning of "determined".

No. You made a claim that was directly contradicted by facts observed by professionals.


You can try to waffle out of it by pretending words are vague, but you were wrong.

If YOU seem to be confused about it, and can't understand even after my repeated attempts to explain it to you, then it wouldn't be surprising if the jury wasn't able to understand the difference either, and came to a logical error as a result.


I am claiming he DID NOT determine that. And when they say he did, they mean it in a very different sense from a scientist who determines something in an experiment. That was only his OPINION and conclusion he personally came to. Just like a judge "determines" things even when there is no proof, no way for the judge to logically prove it, and the judge can't know for sure. The medical examiner's finding is a legal determination, which is different from the normal understanding of a determination, like a detective solving a crime, or a doctor determining what is wrong with a patient. It's common and ordinary for a medical examiner (examining a dead body) to make a legal determination as to cause of death without going so far as actually determining it. The terminologies in these two different situations do not have the same meanings.

The legal "determination" of the medical examiner as to cause of death should not have been treated like medical or legal proof in a criminal trial.
The jury, just like you, did not understand the difference.

Given the same medical facts in this case, two different people could easily come to different "determinations".

What you don't understand is it's not like they just hand the medical examiner the body and ask him to figure out how it died. They first give the medical examiner the detective's police report. So when the medical examiner makes a "determination", in some way he is playing the role of a jury.

Maybe what they should have done is ask the medical examiner questions like whether it was possible to know how likely the death would have been if there had not been additional underlying medical factors.



Another piece of semantics and equivocation fallacy is that "cause of death" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "contributing factor" in death.
For example, someone could drink a large quantity of alcohol, to the point of sickness and unconsciousness, and then choke on their own vomit. The "cause of death" is asphyxiation, but that does not mean the alcohol was not the main factor causing the death.

This is all BS because you have no evidence that Covid helped kill him.

And you are then using this unsupported belief as justification for murder.

[Puffer Fish]

No. You made a claim that was directly contradicted by facts observed by professionals.

No I didn't.

You are incapable of understanding. (Either that of you simply don't want to see)

You are misunderstanding what a "determination" from a medical examiner actually means.
A medical examiner is tasked with attaching an official determination to a death, every time they recieve a body. Often they don't really know or are not certain, but are still expected to attach a "determination".

Sadly this is a big problem in law enforcement because often when a medical examiner makes a "determination" saying it was not murder, that is the end of the matter, case closed. Many murder cases don't get investigated because officials in the system wrongfully assume that it has been "determined" it was not a murder.

[Puffer Fish]

This is all BS because you have no evidence that Covid helped kill him.

And you are then using this unsupported belief as justification for murder.

There is really no way to know for certain.

But with the facts, it is possible to come to several reasonable conclusions.

It doesn't need to be "proved" that Covid killed him. You are confused as to which side the burden of evidence lies. It does create plenty of reasonable doubt.

Think about it this way. Suppose that Covid reduced his breathing capacity by 70% and then the pressure applied to the neck reduced his breathing capacity by an additional 30%. If that were the case, which one of those two would you say it was that "killed" him? Is it the one that contributed more to the death than the other, or is it the one that was the final straw, the additional factor that was added right before death resulted?

No one disputes he was already having plenty of difficulty breathing before the restraint technique was applied.

[Puffer Fish]

Extreme, reckless disregard for life.

The law in some sense tells police and guides them to do this.

It's legal to have some disregard for life when the law is telling officers to do something.

You appear to be conflating together what each individual police officer should have done in that situation with what mistakes they may have made.

Of course the wacky Left views the component of this that was perfectly legal as just part of "the murder".

You MUST and have no choice other than to admit that Chauvin getting on top of Floyd in that situation was perfectly normal and legal in response to the situation. The only controversial part is the specific restraint technique that Chauvin chose to use to try to make sure the suspect was under physical control and could not be going anywhere.

Now, those who defend Chauvin argue it was an easy mistake to make, in that situation, and from the frame of mind of the perpetrator, would not have seemed too unreasonable. (That is a different matter from whether it was actually unreasonable, or whether it was a big mistake)

Some things can seem like an obvious mistake in retrospect, giving it plenty of thought after the fact, but would not seem to be a mistake in the heat of the moment, when an officer must react fast and does not have much time to think.

[Puffer Fish]

In the old days police would beat a suspect with their truncheons until they stopped putting up resistance and agreed to cooperate.

You have to feel sorry for Floyd since he was under the influence of drugs and could not think rationally, and there was seemingly no way for him to be able to act like a normal person and comply. But again, that is his fault for using drugs.

In these sort of cases, maybe the best thing for police to do is inject the suspect with tranquilisers, but with Floyd's medical condition, he most likely would not have survived that either.

[Fasces]

The law has said that no component of the treatment George Floyd received was "legal".

[Puffer Fish]

The law has said that no component of the treatment George Floyd received was "legal".

You actually think that?

Tell us what part wasn't legal, in your view. (up to the point and before the application of pressure on the suspect's neck)

[Pants-of-dog]

No I didn't.

You are incapable of understanding. (Either that of you simply don't want to see)

You are misunderstanding what a "determination" from a medical examiner actually means.
A medical examiner is tasked with attaching an official determination to a death, every time they recieve a body. Often they don't really know or are not certain, but are still expected to attach a "determination".

Sadly this is a big problem in law enforcement because often when a medical examiner makes a "determination" saying it was not murder, that is the end of the matter, case closed. Many murder cases don't get investigated because officials in the system wrongfully assume that it has been "determined" it was not a murder.

There is really no way to know for certain.

But with the facts, it is possible to come to several reasonable conclusions.

It doesn't need to be "proved" that Covid killed him. You are confused as to which side the burden of evidence lies. It does create plenty of reasonable doubt.

Think about it this way. Suppose that Covid reduced his breathing capacity by 70% and then the pressure applied to the neck reduced his breathing capacity by an additional 30%. If that were the case, which one of those two would you say it was that "killed" him? Is it the one that contributed more to the death than the other, or is it the one that was the final straw, the additional factor that was added right before death resulted?

No one disputes he was already having plenty of difficulty breathing before the restraint technique was applied.

Well, the medical examiner found evidence that directly contradicts your claim that Covid was a cause of Mr. Floyd’s death.

But you want to ignore medical evidence and tell the jury to also ignore said evidence because you have think Covid might be plausible, and you also justify murder because “determination” has more than one meaning.

You should call the lawyers for this murderer and tell them about your rock solid argument.

Let us know how it goes.

Also, explain why the murderer held Mr. Floyd in the lethal restraint position for almost nine minutes. Is there video evidence showing Mr. Floyd resisting arrest for that whole time? Yes or no?

[Puffer Fish]

Well, the medical examiner found evidence that directly contradicts your claim that Covid was a cause of Mr. Floyd’s death.

But you want to ignore medical evidence

Tell us what that evidence was.

[Puffer Fish]

Also, explain why the murderer held Mr. Floyd in the lethal restraint position for almost nine minutes. Is there video evidence showing Mr. Floyd resisting arrest for that whole time? Yes or no?

Because they had already struggled to get Floyd in the patrol car, and then after all that effort and struggle and all the officers being tired out, Floyd then flopped right back out the other side of the car.

It's understandable the officers would have been frustrated at that point.

The side of the car he flopped out of was facing the busy street with many cars moving by. They had to make sure Floyd would not be able to get up because, in that condition (not thinking rationally acting hysterically under the influence of drugs) he might have tried to run away from the officers into traffic, putting his own life and the life of officers chasing after him in jeopardy.
Again, this was a big guy. It was not easy for the officers to be able to control him.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

I already quoted the medical examiner report.

And no, you cannot provide video evidence that shows Mr. Floyd resisting for the whole eight minutes or so he was in the lethal restraint.

Now, why are you arguing that he was resisting arrest during that entire time, since you have no evidence that he was?