Fogbow

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 9:03 pm One way to respond…

“Why do you prefer to believe that Chauvin didn’t kill him by kneeling on Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes as Floyd died?”

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 9:06 pm Don’t talk to that person, they are beyond reason. If you must, here are the facts: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-g ... 2530421961

They won’t believe them.

“Mr. Floyd’s use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint, his heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint,” Baker told the jury. He added that while Floyd suffered from heart disease, and fentanyl and methamphetamine found in his blood may have played a role in the death, they “were not direct causes.”

Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist, testified during Chauvin’s trial that the level of methamphetamine found in Floyd’s blood was comparable to levels found in samples taken from living people detained for driving under the influence of narcotics (here).

The sheer volume of videos of Floyd’s arrest makes it clear that physical signs associated with opioid overdose were not seen in the moments before his death, Dr. Lindsey Thomas, an assistant Hennepin County medical examiner until 2017, also testified during Chauvin’s trial.

Under cross examination by Chauvin’s lead lawyer, Baker said that certain heart diseases or use of opioids can be fatal but that neither directly caused Floyd’s death. Instead, he believed it was the holds and compression by police officers.

“My opinion remains unchanged: it’s what I put on the death certificate last June,” Baker said to the jury. “That was my top line then. It would stay my top line now.”

Other medical experts supported Baker’s findings during the trial. Dr. Martin Tobin, a critical care doctor, testified that any “healthy person subjected to” Floyd’s circumstances “would have died” (here).

RVInit wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 9:22 pm The ER doctor who treated George Floyd and attempted to save his life had the opinion that his cardiac arrest was caused by hypoxia, lack of oxygen. He was in a state known as PEA (Pulseless Electrical Activity) and the most common cause of that is either oxygen deprivation or blood loss. Drug overdose has easily detectible qualities which paramedics saw no sign or symptoms of. Those signs are unmistakable and paramedics are easily able to tell if someone is exhibiting signs of drug overdose, which he was not.



Testimony under oath at his trial by several other doctors also revealed they all had the same opinion as to the cause of Floyd's death being caused by cardiac arrest caused by oxygen deprivation due to neck compression:

“Mr. Floyd’s use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint, his heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint,” Baker told the jury. He added that while Floyd suffered from heart disease, and fentanyl and methamphetamine found in his blood may have played a role in the death, they “were not direct causes.”

Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist, testified during Chauvin’s trial that the level of methamphetamine found in Floyd’s blood was comparable to levels found in samples taken from living people detained for driving under the influence of narcotics (here).

The sheer volume of videos of Floyd’s arrest makes it clear that physical signs associated with opioid overdose were not seen in the moments before his death, Dr. Lindsey Thomas, an assistant Hennepin County medical examiner until 2017, also testified during Chauvin’s trial.

Under cross examination by Chauvin’s lead lawyer, Baker said that certain heart diseases or use of opioids can be fatal but that neither directly caused Floyd’s death. Instead, he believed it was the holds and compression by police officers.

“My opinion remains unchanged: it’s what I put on the death certificate last June,” Baker said to the jury. “That was my top line then. It would stay my top line now.”

Other medical experts supported Baker’s findings during the trial. Dr. Martin Tobin, a critical care doctor, testified that any “healthy person subjected to” Floyd’s circumstances “would have died” (here).

Here is Reuter's fact check complete with videos and a massive amount of links to details of medical expert's findings as to the cause of George Floyd's death. All the testimony videos are embedded within this article and numerous articles with additional medical expert explanation are linked throughout the article.

The cause of George Floyd's death was put to bed long ago and Tucker Carlson is a White Supremacist asshole.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N3241XJ

Radley Balko
@radleybalko
This is exploding on right-wing Twitter as if it’s some new revelation. It isn’t.

The thing is, there’s actually a nugget of truth here. But it doesn’t exonerate Chauvin. Instead, its an indictment of how cops are reflexively cleared for in-custody deaths.

A quick

The Minneapolis ME’s office did indeed give prosecutors an improper, preliminary report that appeared to downplay Chauvin’s role in Floyd’s death. (A judge later scolded the DA’s office for this.)

This happens often with in-custody deaths.

They’re also right that public and political pressure may have altered the ME’s early analysis. But that pressure didn’t result in an incorrect manner of death determination. Instead, it turned what looked to be a false, knee jerk exoneration of cops too common in these cases.

The manner of such deaths is are often called “undetermined” if MEs can find any contributing factor in the victim at all — “excited delirium,” “sickle-cell trait,” drug use, a heart condition, etc. And that’s often enough to preclude any criminal investigation.

The only medical examiner who testified for Chauvin’s defense (the former state ME for Maryland), for example, gave testimony so misguided that the state is now reviewing other autopsies he conducted after in-custody deaths.

The overwhelming consensus in the medical community — among MEs, heart specialists, pulmonologists, and on and on . . . is that George Floyd would not have died but for Chauvin’s excessive force. That’s a homicide.

This is what right-wing defenders of Chauvin are glossing over.

They’re correct that this case is an aberration. They’re wrong that it was an injustice.

Public scrutiny prompted state officials to actually get it right this time. The outcome here was just. But *that* —the just outcome — is the aberration.

I’ll have more on this soon.

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 9:26 pm There’s no chance Chauvin might be freed as a result of Carlson’s latest report is there?

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 8:49 pm How do I respond to this? I mean.I’m pretty Street-smart and I know that coroners don’t alter the results of autopsies.

“Yeah, he's not the guy who examined the body. You can post all the opinion pieces you want. Doesn't change the fact that the dude who DID HIS FUCKING AUTOPSY confessed he changed it to save his career. You people are the most dense motherfuckers on the planet.‘

keith wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 10:37 pm

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 8:49 pm How do I respond to this? I mean.I’m pretty Street-smart and I know that coroners don’t alter the results of autopsies.

“Yeah, he's not the guy who examined the body. You can post all the opinion pieces you want. Doesn't change the fact that the dude who DID HIS FUCKING AUTOPSY confessed he changed it to save his career. You people are the most dense motherfuckers on the planet.‘

Hi DR. I.F.

I remember you from Doc Conspiracy's site. I don't remember what I remember, but I do remember.

As for responding to weirdos, my Pappy always said:

Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get filthy and the pig likes it.

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 11:52 pmThe thing is the sheer volume of people insisting he died due to an overdose of fentanyl is so overwhelming it seems like people like me are the ones who are willfully ignorant.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:12 am Just repeating one of my mantras, which is repetitive of others' posts above.

You can't reason with the unreasonable. Walk away. Your mental health will thank you.

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 12:59 am Millions used to. Now only a few thousand do, if that.

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 9:10 am

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 12:59 am Millions used to. Now only a few thousand do, if that.

Still too many.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s conviction for the murder of George Floyd, whose killing reignited the Black Lives Matter movement and sparked worldwide protests in summer 2020.

Chauvin had asked the justices to hear his case after Minnesota’s top court declined to do so.

The justices declined to take up Chauvin’s appeal, letting his conviction stand.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:57 pm On what basis was he tying to have his case overturned/reheard/whatever?

Chauvin had argued that jury bias and certain rulings by the presiding judge deprived him of his right to a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 1:57 pm On what basis was he tying to have his case overturned/reheard/whatever?

SCOTUS cert. petition wrote:Although a slightly similar question was presented to this Court in Skilling* v. U.S., 558 U.S. 945 (2009), questions remained unresolved regarding the presumption of presumed prejudice and the meaning of an “extreme case.” While Skilling identified four non-exclusive factors to presume prejudice and warrant a change of venue, issues related to community harm and juror vested interests as presumptive bias factors prior to voir dire were not addressed. A community from which the jurors will be chosen experienced catastrophic violent riots resulting from a police officer’s acts and believed that further rioting or harm to them or their families will result if they acquit the police officer as a criminal defendant. The defendant’s motion for a change of venue was denied. The questions presented are:

1. Whether catastrophic-widespread community harm and threat of harm is a presumed community bias and must be considered as a singular inquiry as an extreme case creating circumstances so inherently prejudicial that jury bias must also be presumed because jurors have a vested interest in the outcome of the case, thereby narrowing a trial court’s discretion and mandating a change of venue, without voir dire, to ensure a constitutionally fair trial under the Sixth Amendment.

2. Whether when evidence of juror prejudice and voir dire misconduct found after trial indicates a juror stereotyped, prejudged, or carried an undisclosed animus against the criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires the trial court to consider that evidence and any resulting denial of the right to trial by an impartial jury.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 4:09 pm I guess it's just boilerplate Hail Mary stuff.

Surprised it got that far.