Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#376

Post by sugar magnolia »

I keep forgetting to mention one thing. Being "certified" in a particular skill sounds impressive, but in the context of what they're testifying to, it doesn't really mean much. I have a stack of "certifications" from everybody from the FBI to the Red Cross. I got a Certified Interstate Interdiction Officer certificate from an 8-hour class, and a DUI certification from 2 6-hour classes, during which half of each class got drunk so the other half could practice on them. I got certified to carry OC spray because I let them spray me in the face. That particular certification allowed me to use the spray and testify in court because I could say I knew what the consequences of being sprayed were. That was a relatively useless certification because I'm apparently one of the 8% of people who don't react to it like others do. I think they make everyone who goes through the academy now get sprayed, but it was optional when I did it. The FBI certified me for blood evidence collection and preservation and ballistics collection and submission. I taught in-service classes at the academy on report writing (required class) and identifying and dealing with the Deaf community. Yep, the 4 hour class on recognizing Deaf people got you a certificate.

Oh yeah, I'm certified a level 3 in verbal judo also. That just means I went through the class 3 times.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#377

Post by LM K »

sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:39 pm I keep forgetting to mention one thing. Being "certified" in a particular skill sounds impressive, but in the context of what they're testifying to, it doesn't really mean much. I have a stack of "certifications" from everybody from the FBI to the Red Cross. I got a Certified Interstate Interdiction Officer certificate from an 8-hour class, and a DUI certification from 2 6-hour classes, during which half of each class got drunk so the other half could practice on them. I got certified to carry OC spray because I let them spray me in the face. That particular certification allowed me to use the spray and testify in court because I could say I knew what the consequences of being sprayed were. That was a relatively useless certification because I'm apparently one of the 8% of people who don't react to it like others do. I think they make everyone who goes through the academy now get sprayed, but it was optional when I did it. The FBI certified me for blood evidence collection and preservation and ballistics collection and submission. I taught in-service classes at the academy on report writing (required class) and identifying and dealing with the Deaf community. Yep, the 4 hour class on recognizing Deaf people got you a certificate.

Oh yeah, I'm certified a level 3 in verbal judo also. That just means I went through the class 3 times.
Excellent points, Sugar. When I listened to his certifications, I thought they sounded rather weak for a use of force expert, but wasn't certain. Esp after the prosecution had folks teaching about such issues at universities, write publications, appear at national conferences, etc. And the prosecution's experts had actual degrees. There are certainly expert witnesses that do all of that and are baffoons.

The prosecution's use of force expert spent something like 125-150 hours reviewing and analyzing everything. This guy spent 60 hours, admits he didn't review all the evidence. Iirc, he didn't watch all the videos and didn't look at the autopsy photos. Why did the defense allow him to testify when he hadn't evaluated all the evidence?!

I've rarely seen a witness so unprepared and unprofessional on the stand. Brodd was obscene.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#378

Post by RVInit »

HLN is talking about the testimony that suggests that Floyd had a habit of ingesting whatever drugs he had on him when encountered by police pointing guns at him.

I hope that a pain management doctor will be one of the rebuttal witnesses. It take more than an hour for opioids to start getting into your bloodstream and take affect, so the idea that he would have had an almost immediate overdose and reaction may not be valid. Of course, these are street drugs, but we know how much fentanyl/norfentanyl was in his system and I think there are known quantities as far as how long it takes to metabolize even street drugs. And lots of doctors saying he showed no signs that he was experiencing a drug overdose. I still want a pain management doctor to be called by the prosecution because that doctor might be able to disavow people of the misinformation they may have when it comes to opioids. I have been taking them for 22 years with no bad effects whatsoever and never have had any experience of overdose. Of course, I take them as prescribed, but still, 22 years of regular use has not harmed me in any way.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#379

Post by sugar magnolia »

RVInit wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:56 pm HLN is talking about the testimony that suggests that Floyd had a habit of ingesting whatever drugs he had on him when encountered by police pointing guns at him.
That triggered something that had struck me as odd when I saw the video during the trial but I couldn't put my finger on it until they started analyzing it to death and showing the video multiple times with the panel discussing it. In the video of the first arrest, the officer dealing with the driver is the one who says "spit it out" but there's no way to tell who she is talking to. She also threatens to tase someone several times. Unless the entire force is incompetent, reckless, and/or badly trained, I can't imagine she's addressing herself to George Floyd. She also says, at least once after he is out of the car on the passenger side, "put your hands on your head" which is obviously (at least to me) not directed at George Floyd. The other officers are already handcuffing him. And yet, they keep saying the video shows a history of him swallowing drugs when being arrested. It doesn't show that at all to me because there's nothing but the officer's words, and they appear to be directed at the driver.

It also pisses me off that the moron officer has already pulled his weapon before even reaching the window with no apparent provocation. Then he tells George Floyd to keep his hands in sight, but also to unbuckle his seatbelt, You can't do both. And then testified that George Floyd was "twisting to his left" while he was in the car. Of course he was, how else would he unbuckle the seatbelt? All the business about spit out the drugs and I'm going to tase you doesn't really prove anything to me about what George Floyd may or may not have a history of doing, other than hanging out with other drug users. It just didn't strike me that those comments were directed at him and not the driver.
User avatar
sad-cafe
Posts: 1990
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:17 am
Location: Kansas aka Red State Hell

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#380

Post by sad-cafe »

did the prosecution make anything of why they rejected the guy when he went to the state first?


is he trying to now sink the prosecution because they refused him?
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#381

Post by LM K »

sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:45 pm
RVInit wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:56 pm HLN is talking about the testimony that suggests that Floyd had a habit of ingesting whatever drugs he had on him when encountered by police pointing guns at him.
That triggered something that had struck me as odd when I saw the video during the trial but I couldn't put my finger on it until they started analyzing it to death and showing the video multiple times with the panel discussing it. In the video of the first arrest, the officer dealing with the driver is the one who says "spit it out" but there's no way to tell who she is talking to. She also threatens to tase someone several times. Unless the entire force is incompetent, reckless, and/or badly trained, I can't imagine she's addressing herself to George Floyd. She also says, at least once after he is out of the car on the passenger side, "put your hands on your head" which is obviously (at least to me) not directed at George Floyd. The other officers are already handcuffing him. And yet, they keep saying the video shows a history of him swallowing drugs when being arrested. It doesn't show that at all to me because there's nothing but the officer's words, and they appear to be directed at the driver.

It also pisses me off that the moron officer has already pulled his weapon before even reaching the window with no apparent provocation. Then he tells George Floyd to keep his hands in sight, but also to unbuckle his seatbelt, You can't do both. And then testified that George Floyd was "twisting to his left" while he was in the car. Of course he was, how else would he unbuckle the seatbelt? All the business about spit out the drugs and I'm going to tase you doesn't really prove anything to me about what George Floyd may or may not have a history of doing, other than hanging out with other drug users. It just didn't strike me that those comments were directed at him and not the driver.
Thank you, Sugar!

Had any of the officers on scene encountered Floyd previously? I know that Floyd and Chauvin had worked security together, but that wouldn't give Chauvin info about Floyd ingesting/not ingesting drugs on scene.

How the hell are citizens supposed to follow conflicting orders?

Rr
I'm beginning to believe that many (not most or all) officers either can't or won't apply their training. Being reasonable is in everyone's interest, including cops.

Edited: I found the answer to that question.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#382

Post by LM K »

sad-cafe wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:00 pm did the prosecution make anything of why they rejected the guy when he went to the state first?


is he trying to now sink the prosecution because they refused him?
They didn't hire him because he wasn't a quality "expert" witness. The state already has trainers with Brodd's level of experience.

I don't think this has anything to do with Brodd's testimony or demeanor. Brodd was pissed because he was out of his depth and realized that almost immediately upon cross examination.

Brodd didn't know what he was up for. Had he reviewed all the evidence, he would have been more prepared. I'm flabbergasted that he didn't review all the evidence before he testified. I'm even more shocked that he actually admitted that. He didn't even try to say he reviewed everything he was given ... because he was given everything. That admission sank Brodd and the prosecution did well pointing that out ... repeatedly.

Imo, reaching out to the prosecution, being refused, and then testifying for the defense highlighted that Brodd is a hired gun.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#383

Post by sugar magnolia »

LM K wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:04 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:45 pm
RVInit wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:56 pm HLN is talking about the testimony that suggests that Floyd had a habit of ingesting whatever drugs he had on him when encountered by police pointing guns at him.
That triggered something that had struck me as odd when I saw the video during the trial but I couldn't put my finger on it until they started analyzing it to death and showing the video multiple times with the panel discussing it. In the video of the first arrest, the officer dealing with the driver is the one who says "spit it out" but there's no way to tell who she is talking to. She also threatens to tase someone several times. Unless the entire force is incompetent, reckless, and/or badly trained, I can't imagine she's addressing herself to George Floyd. She also says, at least once after he is out of the car on the passenger side, "put your hands on your head" which is obviously (at least to me) not directed at George Floyd. The other officers are already handcuffing him. And yet, they keep saying the video shows a history of him swallowing drugs when being arrested. It doesn't show that at all to me because there's nothing but the officer's words, and they appear to be directed at the driver.

It also pisses me off that the moron officer has already pulled his weapon before even reaching the window with no apparent provocation. Then he tells George Floyd to keep his hands in sight, but also to unbuckle his seatbelt, You can't do both. And then testified that George Floyd was "twisting to his left" while he was in the car. Of course he was, how else would he unbuckle the seatbelt? All the business about spit out the drugs and I'm going to tase you doesn't really prove anything to me about what George Floyd may or may not have a history of doing, other than hanging out with other drug users. It just didn't strike me that those comments were directed at him and not the driver.
Thank you, Sugar!

Had any of the officers on scene encountered Floyd previously? I know that Floyd and Chauvin had worked security together, but that wouldn't give Chauvin info about Floyd ingesting/not ingesting drugs on scene.

How the hell are citizens supposed to follow conflicting orders?

It seems routine for officers to have their hand on their firearms when approaching black people, esp black teen/men. I don't see videos of that happening to white men or women, but it's unusual to see video of a white cop approaching a black teen/man in any situation without his hand on his gun. To pull a weapon out when approaching a man on a forgery call is absurd. It's dangerous.

I'm beginning to believe that many (not most or all) officers either can't or won't apply their training. Being reasonable is in everyone's interest, including cops.
From the time we were very little, my dad told us (concerning wearing a weapon) that you don't pull it unless you are willing and can justify aiming it at someone, don't aim it at someone unless you are willing and can justify shooting someone, and don't shoot someone unless you are willing and can justify killing them. If I was approaching a vehicle on a traffic stop, my hand was on my weapon but it was holstered unless it was a felony stop or we had reason to draw. Clearing a residence or building our weapons were out but held down usually. Actually pointing and aiming at someone was rare for any of us and it always, always ran through my mind that it was a continuum from drawing to killing. It's amazing how that thought can make you double check your decision, even in a split second. I don't think there was ever a time in my years on the street that I would have thought killing someone for not putting their hands on the dashboard fast enough to suit me was worth it. To my mind, if he pointed his weapon, he had to be willing to kill. That doesn't seem to the training/thought process/whatever any more, though.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#384

Post by sugar magnolia »

LM K wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:19 pm
sad-cafe wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:00 pm did the prosecution make anything of why they rejected the guy when he went to the state first?


is he trying to now sink the prosecution because they refused him?
They didn't hire him because he wasn't a quality "expert" witness. The state already has trainers with Brodd's level of experience.

I don't think this has anything to do with Brodd's testimony or demeanor. Brodd was pissed because he was out of his depth and realized that almost immediately upon cross examination.

Brodd didn't know what he was up for. Had he reviewed all the evidence, he would have been more prepared. I'm flabbergasted that he didn't review all the evidence before he testified. I'm even more shocked that he actually admitted that. He didn't even try to say he reviewed everything he was given ... because he was given everything. That admission sank Brodd and the prosecution did well pointing that out ... repeatedly.

Imo, reaching out to the prosecution, being refused, and then testifying for the defense highlighted that Brodd is a hired gun.
That's partly on the defense, too, if they didn't prepare him for a withering cross or just stay the hell away from anything that would open the door for the prosecution to hammer him like they did.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#385

Post by LM K »

sugar magnolia wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:33 pm
From the time we were very little, my dad told us (concerning wearing a weapon) that you don't pull it unless you are willing and can justify aiming it at someone, don't aim it at someone unless you are willing and can justify shooting someone, and don't shoot someone unless you are willing and can justify killing them. If I was approaching a vehicle on a traffic stop, my hand was on my weapon but it was holstered unless it was a felony stop or we had reason to draw. Clearing a residence or building our weapons were out but held down usually. Actually pointing and aiming at someone was rare for any of us and it always, always ran through my mind that it was a continuum from drawing to killing. It's amazing how that thought can make you double check your decision, even in a split second. I don't think there was ever a time in my years on the street that I would have thought killing someone for not putting their hands on the dashboard fast enough to suit me was worth it. To my mind, if he pointed his weapon, he had to be willing to kill. That doesn't seem to the training/thought process/whatever any more, though.
Wise words.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
sterngard friegen
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:51 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#386

Post by sterngard friegen »

Fascinating discussion on Brodd, but let me give my take on it, as a trial lawyer.

All defense counsel wanted from a witness who was somehow a certified "expert" on the use of force was to bless Chauvin's conduct. No matter how much bullshit Brodd spewed he did the one thing the defense wanted: he said with a straight face that Chauvin used a proper amount of force.

That's now out there for anyone on the jury who wants to grasp at straws for acquittal. That's what the testimony was for. No need to put too fine a point on it or celebrate the cross examination.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#387

Post by LM K »

sterngard friegen wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:35 pm Fascinating discussion on Brodd, but let me give my take on it, as a trial lawyer.

All defense counsel wanted from a witness who was somehow a certified "expert" on the use of force was to bless Chauvin's conduct. No matter how much bullshit Brodd spewed he did the one thing the defense wanted: he said with a straight face that Chauvin used a proper amount of force.

That's now out there for anyone on the jury who wants to grasp at straws for acquittal. That's what the testimony was for. No need to put too fine a point on it or celebrate the cross examination.
Excellent point. Unfortunately. I was stunned when Brodd said that. Buy you're correct; the sentence was uttered.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#388

Post by sugar magnolia »

sterngard friegen wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:35 pm Fascinating discussion on Brodd, but let me give my take on it, as a trial lawyer.

All defense counsel wanted from a witness who was somehow a certified "expert" on the use of force was to bless Chauvin's conduct. No matter how much bullshit Brodd spewed he did the one thing the defense wanted: he said with a straight face that Chauvin used a proper amount of force.

That's now out there for anyone on the jury who wants to grasp at straws for acquittal. That's what the testimony was for. No need to put too fine a point on it or celebrate the cross examination.
Any idea how much that might have cost Chauvin's defense fund? I heard someone say that the organization funding him gave him a budget of a million dollars.
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:11 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left at the portrait of George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney. I am not your lawyer. My posts != legal advice.

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#389

Post by fierceredpanda »

sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:35 am
sterngard friegen wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:35 pm Fascinating discussion on Brodd, but let me give my take on it, as a trial lawyer.

All defense counsel wanted from a witness who was somehow a certified "expert" on the use of force was to bless Chauvin's conduct. No matter how much bullshit Brodd spewed he did the one thing the defense wanted: he said with a straight face that Chauvin used a proper amount of force.

That's now out there for anyone on the jury who wants to grasp at straws for acquittal. That's what the testimony was for. No need to put too fine a point on it or celebrate the cross examination.
Any idea how much that might have cost Chauvin's defense fund? I heard someone say that the organization funding him gave him a budget of a million dollars.
I've seen reporting that Brodd was paid $11,000.

Stern is correct that any juror who wants to grasp at straws to acquit can do so. I've said since last year that it would be up to the prosecutors at voire dire to seek out and strike such jurors, and I stand by that analysis.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple. The smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#390

Post by sugar magnolia »

fierceredpanda wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:44 am
sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:35 am
sterngard friegen wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:35 pm Fascinating discussion on Brodd, but let me give my take on it, as a trial lawyer.

All defense counsel wanted from a witness who was somehow a certified "expert" on the use of force was to bless Chauvin's conduct. No matter how much bullshit Brodd spewed he did the one thing the defense wanted: he said with a straight face that Chauvin used a proper amount of force.

That's now out there for anyone on the jury who wants to grasp at straws for acquittal. That's what the testimony was for. No need to put too fine a point on it or celebrate the cross examination.
Any idea how much that might have cost Chauvin's defense fund? I heard someone say that the organization funding him gave him a budget of a million dollars.
I've seen reporting that Brodd was paid $11,000.
So that's what a soul goes for these days?
Stern is correct that any juror who wants to grasp at straws to acquit can do so. I've said since last year that it would be up to the prosecutors at voire dire to seek out and strike such jurors, and I stand by that analysis.
I never doubted that. I'm just curious if it works on this particular jury. I can't imagine the intellectual contortions that will be necessary to take his word over all the other experts.
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#391

Post by Uninformed »

Reflecting on what Chauvin did, why, and why for so long, I came to the conclusion that if this had occurred in the UK a conviction, for manslaughter not murder, would be the probable outcome but not a certainty. I often have some sympathy for those on the “front line” when situations are created by the orders of their superiors, but that does not apply in this case. The authority and power invested in police officers should come with more accountability not less.
Sadly I feel more depressed than outraged.
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#392

Post by RVInit »

72 million Americans succumbed to intellectual contortions in voting booths across this nation last November.

Supposedly when you see jurors taking notes, it means they think the testimony is credible and worthy of discussing later on. Reports are that several, if not most, of this jury took notes during this man's ridiculous testimony. Even after the prosecutor got one after another after another concession from him, they took notes during re-direct when he went back to making the statements that he himself had just refuted.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#393

Post by RVInit »

I won't be able to give much for updates today, I took yesterday off because I had such a high fever every muscle in my body was screaming and I was hot/cold all night long. I feel much better today, so I'm working.

However, I just heard the first witness give the prosecutor a big gift. He admitted that during his work he would use the expertise of others - and he specifically mentioned a pulmonologist. Sounds like he's getting into hearsay, and probably that is why we are seeing a sidebar right now.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#394

Post by Kendra »

:bighug:

I'll likely miss a big chunk this morning. Going to pick up the rental car and stop at the tow company to get my stuff before the insurance company takes possession of my car.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#395

Post by RVInit »

OMG. The witness just said Floyd died "during the peaceful restraint by police". :brickwallsmall:
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#396

Post by sugar magnolia »

The "panel" has been referred to several times by the commentators on HLN so I'm guessing the prosecution will be hyper-aware of his testimony that might be hearsay.

I had to go look up cardiac pathologist, a specialty I'd never heard of.
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#397

Post by LM K »

RVInit wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:52 am I won't be able to give much for updates today, I took yesterday off because I had such a high fever every muscle in my body was screaming and I was hot/cold all night long. I feel much better today, so I'm working.

However, I just heard the first witness give the prosecutor a big gift. He admitted that during his work he would use the expertise of others - and he specifically mentioned a pulmonologist. Sounds like he's getting into hearsay, and probably that is why we are seeing a sidebar right now.
You worked so hard for us while being so ill?! Imo, that makes your contributions even more of a gift.

Thank you my dear. I hope you're feeling much better today.
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#398

Post by RVInit »

Now the witness is saying that not every case neatly fits into any of the categories of manner of death. The recommendation in the guidelines say that positional asphyxiation "may" be classified as homicide. He's making a point that medical cause of death is not the same as legal cause of death, and not meant to usurp the legal process. The prosecutor made that point when the medical examiner testified.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#399

Post by LM K »

I had a doctor's appointment yesterday late in the day. I was still furious about Brodd's testimony. I warned the nurse that my BP would be elevated, and it was. :batting: She took my BP again at the end of the appt and it was in normal range. :lol:
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

#400

Post by LM K »

The idea that Floyd wouldn't have died if he had been healthier is so offensive to me.

I've been in multiple accidents (never my fault). That has made my jaw and neck more vulnerable and more easily being injured for any reason. Is a insurance company less liable because of my pre-existing issues? No.

Imo, this issue highlights how dangerous Chauvin is. Chauvin should understand human beings should be treated as human beings.

The defense: How DARE Floyd die while Chauvin kept his knee on his neck! It wasn't Chauvin's fault because Floyd had heart disease and took drugs!!!
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”