But you said Floyd had "a lethal dose of fentanyl" in his body. So we are not talking about a healthy person. Lethal means he's essentially dead already.
But of course.... the facts are it was not a lethal dose.
...
Quote:
An overdose occurs when a drug produces serious adverse effects and life-threatening symptoms. When people overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop
You folks don't understand. Casey Anthony "walked" because the prosecution could not prove what the criminal act was that resulted in the death of her child.
Pretty much everybody knows she killed her daughter, it just couldn't be proven. I think this is similar situation here, you have to show the criminal act and at what point it becomes criminal. Restraining a suspect isn't a criminal act.
Well, you guys thinking bringing this type of analysis is some sort of defense of Chauvin but it's more or less an analysis of the situation, and will likely be a big factor if he's acquitted. I'm sorry you don't like that. It's a very difficult case to prove. You don't understand that so you're going to all be screaming when and if he gets acquitted, that ignorance is going to lead to people to rioting, if that were to occur.
No, Trolly, the government has to prove at what minute does it become criminal...
You just made that up.
There is nothing in the criminal code that requires such distinction.
The action can be criminal regardless of the time it was in place. It can be considered criminal simply because the person has submitted and you keep doing it anyway.
Stop making stuff and representing it as if factual.
Well, you guys thinking bringing this type of analysis is some sort of defense of Chauvin but it's more or less an analysis of the situation, and will likely be a big factor if he's acquitted. I'm sorry you don't like that. It's a very difficult case to prove. You don't understand that so you're going to all be screaming when and if he gets acquitted, that ignorance is going to lead to people to rioting, if that were to occur.
LOL
Can just see Sean Hannity or some other clown getting all fired up when cities are burning across the country that people just don't understand.
Actually they understand perfectly.
Hopefully the only question is whether the chomos are going to man up and make this guy's life hell in PC.
"Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether a person who had none of those preexisting conditions, a healthy person, would have died under the same circumstances as Mr. Floyd?" prosecutor Jerry Blackwell asked him.
"Yes. A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died," Tobin said.
If the defense shows an exhibit that recreates the situation, and the person doesn't run out of oxygen within 6 minutes...
Quote:
A renowned pulmonary expert testified that he calculated Derek Chauvin’s knee was on George Floyd’s neck for more than 3 minutes after “there was not an ounce of oxygen left” in his body.
What do you think that's going to do to this guy's credibility?
If the defense shows an exhibit that recreates the situation, and the person doesn't run out of oxygen within 6 minutes...
What do you think that's going to do to this guy's credibility?
Is this like your prior hypothetical that seemed to be 'wow' 'devastating' moments for you?
I honestly am not sure what you are saying here but I am guessing you are saying 'if they can demonstrate a knee on the neck where the guy does not die or blackout' that somehow would be bad?
Meaning you think that if one person grabs you in a rear naked choke and squeezes so hard you die in 3 minutes, and another person does it for 5 minutes but in a slightly different positioning and with less pressure and the person stays conscious that is somehow shocking.
---
I shot a guy and he died ....MURDER.
But I recreated it and shot a guy and he only got a flesh wound... ACQUIT!!!
Is this like your prior hypothetical that seemed to be 'wow' 'devastating' moments for you?
I honestly am not sure what you are saying here but I am guessing you are saying 'if they can demonstrate a knee on the neck where the guy does not die or blackout' that somehow would be bad?
Meaning you think that if one person grabs you in a rear naked choke and squeezes so hard you die in 3 minutes, and another person does it for 5 minutes but in a slightly different positioning and with less pressure and the person stays conscious that is somehow shocking.
---
I shot a guy and he died ....MURDER.
But I recreated it and shot a guy and he only got a flesh wound... ACQUIT!!!
The point is, I don't think that statement can be backed up. He didn't say most likely, likely, or probably, but he said they would die. I think that statement can be easily disproven.
Again, it's not illegal for a cop to restrain a suspect, by the neck. Maybe it should be illegal. It is illegal to shoot someone, so your analogy is bullshit. Like, if your kids were to wrestle, and one of them pinned the other one down, and they end up suffocating, that's not murder.
The point is, I don't think that statement can be backed up. He didn't say most likely, likely, or probably, but he said they would die. I think that statement can be easily disproven.
Again, it's not illegal for a cop to restrain a suspect, by the neck. Maybe it should be illegal. It is illegal to shoot someone, so your analogy is bullshit. Like, if your kids were to wrestle, and one of them pinned the other one down, and they end up suffocating, that's not murder.
Right but you keep treating jurors like they are idiots.
Just because you think it would be 'devastating' to see the Defense stage a knee on neck and the person not die, you should not assume a jury would take that comment as an absolute as opposed to a situational comment.
Do you really think the jury now thinks 'every such situation, staged or not' will result in death' and they will say 'we are holding you to that literally'?
Or do you think you are flailing around looking for any of the thinnest reasons to convince yourself it would be justified to acquit??
No, Trolly, the government has to prove at what minute does it become criminal...
Not sure if you're speaking figuratively or literally here but if it's the latter then I'm pretty sure that's untrue. Prosecution don't need to pare things down to the minute, they need to prove how Chauvin's actions falls under one of the degrees of murder under law. Abusing a technique- even an approved one-which leads to the death of a suspect can quite possibly fall under one of those degrees. They don't need to show at what actual minute this occurred.
The issue is, and it's a reasonable issue, the length of time the restraint was on. Obviously, the length of time the restraint was on contributed to Flyod's death. If the restraint was held due to the threat of the crowd, and potential threat of the suspect, and if those are reasonable considerations in maintaining the restraint (to which the prosecution's use of force witnesses testified to)... It calls into question whether Chauvin ctually committed a crime.
If the length contributed to GF's death then Chauvin did indeed commit a crime. A cop already testified that he didn't perceive the crowd as a threat, so his defence opining they were hostile doesn't really hold water.
Since this is a poker forum.....what do people think the current odds for acquittal are?
100:1
10:1
1:1
From what I am reading here.....ISIV seems to be around 1:2. (He didn't say this, I am just estimating off of what I read)
Cuepee seems to be about 2:1. (Same caveat, Cuepee never said anything like this, I am speculating)
Everyone else seems to be in 100:1 or greater range. (100:1 seems low for several here, but again, no one expressed odds)
That said, if any of the 100:1 people want to put up 1k against my $10, I'm all for it.
You folks don't understand. Casey Anthony "walked" because the prosecution could not prove what the criminal act was that resulted in the death of her child.
Pretty much everybody knows she killed her daughter, it just couldn't be proven. I think this is similar situation here, you have to show the criminal act and at what point it becomes criminal. Restraining a suspect isn't a criminal act.
Since this is a poker forum.....what do people think the current odds for acquittal are?
100:1
10:1
1:1
From what I am reading here.....ISIV seems to be around 1:2. (He didn't say this, I am just estimating off of what I read)
Cuepee seems to be about 2:1. (Same caveat, Cuepee never said anything like this, I am speculating)
Everyone else seems to be in 100:1 or greater range. (100:1 seems low for several here, but again, no one expressed odds)
That said, if any of the 100:1 people want to put up 1k against my $10, I'm all for it.
I would not put it any better than 1:1.
Again I would not be shocked if people like IHIV are eager to get on the jury, these days, to nullify it along partisan lines given any excuse they cling to.
This is the same State that said the cop shoot of Philando Castile was a good shoot.
Since this is a poker forum.....what do people think the current odds for acquittal are?
100:1
10:1
1:1
From what I am reading here.....ISIV seems to be around 1:2. (He didn't say this, I am just estimating off of what I read)
Cuepee seems to be about 2:1. (Same caveat, Cuepee never said anything like this, I am speculating)
Everyone else seems to be in 100:1 or greater range. (100:1 seems low for several here, but again, no one expressed odds)
That said, if any of the 100:1 people want to put up 1k against my $10, I'm all for it.
Before the trial I thought this was an acquittal but after the prosecutions witnesses I have it at manslaughter . Will wait for the full defense but I still have this at an acquittal and 3 innocent folks get killed in the riots
Again I would not be shocked if people like IHIV are eager to get on the jury, these days, to nullify it along partisan lines given any excuse they cling to.
This is the same State that said the cop shoot of Philando Castile was a good shoot.
Popular Forums
Linear Mode
