[Godstud]

If Floyd didn't have a police cunt kneeling on his neck, constricting his breathing, he wouldn't have died. Period.

You are an apologist for the worst kind of behaviors.

[Pants-of-dog]

I doubt Mr, Floyd was using counterfeit currency.

If he had been, the defence would have introduced the counterfeit currency as evidence. They did not.

[Drlee]

@Puffer Fish

Floyd had the coronavirus (later known as Covid). It was still very new at the time and not widely known about. That no doubt greatly contributed to the difficulty breathing. And then the drugs, hysteria caused by drug-induced impaired cognition, fear of going to back to prison, and adrenaline from the police struggle caused Floyd to hyperventilate, which only made things worse.

As to the corona virus, not necessarily. He probably didn't know that he had it. Difficulty breathing in someone who is not openly ill is unusual. It is also the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the health of those in custody. Kneeling on a handcuffed man's neck for nearly nine minutes does not qualify as care.

If Floyd didn't weigh 223 pounds, and had the body mass of a normal person, the amount of illegal drugs in his system very probably would have killed him, or at least he wouldn't have been conscious.

Source?

You really are either a fool or a troll. Probably both.

[Agent Steel]

Opioids can cause depressed breathing. And the rest of the drugs can cause excited delirium, which combined with the strain of a physical struggle, emotional hysteria, and diminished lung capacity due to the suspect having the coronavirus, all contributed towards a heart attack.

I don't think you're going to get through to @Godstud. Everything you said is totally true, but it will just fall on deaf ears. Even when the facts prove that Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death, he's just going to deny it. It's a waste of time talking to people who will not listen to reason.

[XogGyux]

I don't think you're going to get through to @Godstud. Everything you said is totally true, but it will just fall on deaf ears. Even when the facts prove that Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death, he's just going to deny it. It's a waste of time talking to people who will not listen to reason.

Chauvin was the cause of Floyd's death and a Jury of 12 of Cauvin's peers said so.
The evidence was overwhelming. Video camera from multiple angles is as if those 12 jurors witnessed the murder. Stop crying about this criminal.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think you're going to get through to @Godstud. Everything you said is totally true, but it will just fall on deaf ears. Even when the facts prove that Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death, he's just going to deny it. It's a waste of time talking to people who will not listen to reason.

Then provide a link to, and a quote from, the autopsy report that supports your claims.

[Puffer Fish]

I doubt Mr, Floyd was using counterfeit currency.
If he had been, the defence would have introduced the counterfeit currency as evidence. They did not.

That's an extremely dumb and naive comment. Most likely the judge would have prevented the defense from focusing on that (other than to give a quick background to the story of why police had approached him in the first place). It would have been considered legally "irrelevant" by any judge, and possibly prejudicial to the jury. It wouldn't have been a very good defense strategy to focus on it either.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's an extremely dumb and naive comment. Most likely the judge would have prevented the defense from focusing on that (other than to give a quick background to the story of why police had approached him in the first place). It would have been considered legally "irrelevant" by any judge, and possibly prejudicial to the jury. It wouldn't have been a very good defense strategy to focus on it either.

No, none of this is true.

There is no reason for the judge to not allow it into evidence.

Even ignoring the trial, the police would have definitely held a press conference and told the news. We know this because all you people defending the murderer keep bringing it up as if it were relevant.

[wat0n]

It doesn't matter if the currency was actually counterfeit or not.

Also, why are we discussing this? There's a very long thread on the matter.

[Pants-of-dog]

The people who want to defend the murderer brought up the supposedly counterfeit bill.

I presented a logical argument as to why the bill is probably not counterfeit.

If anyone wishes to point out the irrelevance of this supposedly counterfeit money to the defenders of the murderer(s), feel free.

[wat0n]

Sure. Assume the bill was fake.

So what? Does it change anything?

[Pants-of-dog]

While Mr. Floyd did test positive for Covid in a post-mortem nasal swab, the medical examiner did not find that it led to his death, instead saying "the result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent ... positivity from previous infection."

@Puffer Fish
@Agent Steel

I am getting the impression that neither of you Googled your claims to see if there was any independent verification that they were true.

[Godstud]

@Agent Steel No, you are not going to convince me to change my mind, because I deal with facts and reality, and not your ridiculous fantasies or beliefs. Sheesh! Just because you FEEL something is true, doesn't mean that it is.

[Rich]

@Agent Steel No, you are not going to convince me to change my mind, because I deal with facts and reality,

No you don't. There is no good reason to think this was murder. Murder as generally understood is a premeditated unlawful killing. Now I'm certainly no fan of the American police's methods of detainment. On that score I'm glad to live in Britain where I feel the police function some what better. The problem is that in America and outside you've got so many Latte Liberals happy to criticise the police from the safety of their keyboards, but few of them are actually willing to go out and police these ghettos. What's more these narcissists often demand the most absurd levels of health and safety in their own safe cosy jobs, while demanding that others take increased risk. I haven't worked in policing myself but I have worked in security and a number of jobs that are dirty or and have significantly risk of injury.

Don't be fooled by the lies of the international libral media, many of the residents of these areas want tough policing and are not too bothered about the rights of suspects regardless of whether they share a race with them. Its like in Britain, I hate ASBOs they totally undermine the normal principles of the rule of law, but they're quite popular with people who live in high crime areas.

[Drlee]

No you don't. There is no good reason to think this was murder. Murder as generally understood is a premeditated unlawful killing. Now I'm certainly no fan of the American police's methods of detainment. On that score I'm glad to live in Britain where I feel the police function some what better. The problem is that in America and outside you've got so many Latte Liberals happy to criticise the police from the safety of their keyboards, but few of them are actually willing to go out and police these ghettos. What's more these narcissists often demand the most absurd levels of health and safety in their own safe cosy jobs, while demanding that others take increased risk. I haven't worked in policing myself but I have worked in security and a number of jobs that are dirty or and have significantly risk of injury.

Don't be fooled by the lies of the international libral media, many of the residents of these areas want tough policing and are not too bothered about the rights of suspects regardless of whether they share a race with them. Its like in Britain, I hate ASBOs they totally undermine the normal principles of the rule of law, but they're quite popular with people who live in high crime areas.

The reason your argument is not compelling is that you, and so many others for that matter, want to make this about the police and police procedures. This is not. It is a murder case. One case. There need not be the express intent to murder for it to be murder.

I too find the Bobbies a nice lot but the fact remains that London has more crime that the overwhelming number of US cities. Just not guns. I will never excuse our pitiable gun violence rate.

[Puffer Fish]

While Mr. Floyd did test positive for Covid in a post-mortem nasal swab, the medical examiner did not find that it led to his death, instead saying "the result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent ... positivity from previous infection."

I have already addressed this.

I think you are making the same logical error of confusion that the jury made.

In logic there is something called an "equivocation fallacy", where one word (or phrase) can have two subtly different possible meanings, in different contexts.

I would argue that the medical examiner DID NOT, in fact, "determine" that it did not lead to his death, even though he made an official "determination" of that.

Are you able to understand the difference? A "determination" does not necessarily mean what you assume it to mean.

That was just his OPINION, his personal interpretation of the facts. It doesn't mean he was actually able to tell with certainty through proof and logic that was the case.

Just like a judge might "determine" someone is guilty, but that does not necessarily mean it was based on solid proof that they were.

Both you, and the jury, made the mistake of blindly trusting expert opinion without understanding anything about how that expert came to that opinion.

The medical examiner shouldn't have been the one to decide guilt, but in this case he effectively did.

I have no doubt you could find other medical examiners who might have given a different "determination" in that situation, based on the known medical evidence and established facts.

[Puffer Fish]

The reason your argument is not compelling is that you, and so many others for that matter, want to make this about the police and police procedures. This is not. It is a murder case. One case. There need not be the express intent to murder for it to be murder.

I don't find your argument here to have much of any logical substance.

I hope you didn't think it did.

Just to point out the blaring obvious fact to any of you who may not realise it, any argument that boils down to "It was murder because it was murder" is a completely circular argument, and not logically valid.

You claim "this is not about the police and police procedures". Okay. Why not? Your next statement seems to imply the reason for that is because "it is murder".
Hence, that would obviously be the pointless logic I have just described.

We all agree what he did. No one disputes that. The only question is was it justified, or was it a very easy reasonable mistake to have made close to something else that was justified.

You can agree with that?

Even if the victim was wrongfully killed, and even if a mistake was made, that does not necessarily automatically make it murder.

Many of you seem to have difficulty understanding that.

[Godstud]

Even if the victim was wrongfully killed, and even if a mistake was made, that does not necessarily automatically make it murder.

Your entire argument is based on feelings because you don't like the word people are using to describe the way George Floyd was killed. It's not an argument.

[Drlee]

@Puffer Fish Just to point out the blaring obvious fact to any of you who may not realise it, any argument that boils down to "It was murder because it was murder" is a completely circular argument, and not logically valid.

Nonsense. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that the elements of the murder charge on which he was correctly convicted do not include his employment status.

You claim "this is not about the police and police procedures". Okay. Why not?

Because it would be murder if he were not a policeman. The defense wanted to make this about police procedures and it should have. It was their best shot. The judge and jury rejected the argument. And they should have.

Are you maintaining that there are police procedures that call for officers to kill restrained prisoners? Because there are not.

Even if the victim was wrongfully killed, and even if a mistake was made, that does not necessarily automatically make it murder.

Correct. That is why the jury was offered options for the conviction. Three different charges of increasing culpability. He was found guilty of all three. If the jury had wanted to only convict on one of them they could have found him guilty only of this one:

“culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm.”

There is no doubt whatsoever that Chauvin did that. He perpetrated an act of brutality without a thought for the risk to his prisoner.

So you ask:

We all agree what he did. No one disputes that. The only question is was it justified, or was it a very easy reasonable mistake to have made close to something else that was justified.

Well the jury concluded that kneeling on a harmless-restrained person's neck, despite the pleas of others to stop, for nearly 10 minutes, and after his prisoner was not struggling at all, was not "a reasonable mistake" and certainly not a close call.

The jury had also heard expert testimony from two medical experts that any healthy person would have died from the same treatment.

No. They dude did it. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that Chauvin goes to bed each night wondering how this could have happened to a good person like himself, who was acting as the people's protector. There is no doubt in my mind that he did not intend to kill George Floyd. There is no doubt in my mind that he intended to punish and abuse George Floyd. He was hurting him and intended to do it. That is naked brutality.

And you are to remember Puffer that none of the charges on which Chauvin was convicted required him to have intended to kill Floyd.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have already addressed this.

I think you are making the same logical error of confusion that the jury made.

In logic there is something called an "equivocation fallacy", where one word (or phrase) can have two subtly different possible meanings, in different contexts.

I would argue that the medical examiner DID NOT, in fact, "determine" that it did not lead to his death, even though he made an official "determination" of that.

Are you able to understand the difference? A "determination" does not necessarily mean what you assume it to mean.

That was just his OPINION, his personal interpretation of the facts. It doesn't mean he was actually able to tell with certainty through proof and logic that was the case.

Just like a judge might "determine" someone is guilty, but that does not necessarily mean it was based on solid proof that they were.

Both you, and the jury, made the mistake of blindly trusting expert opinion without understanding anything about how that expert came to that opinion.

The medical examiner shouldn't have been the one to decide guilt, but in this case he effectively did.

I have no doubt you could find other medical examiners who might have given a different "determination" in that situation, based on the known medical evidence and established facts.

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.