There were three cops holding the drugged up guy down, Chauvin had his knee on the neck, but does not look like it was with his full body weight, but enough to control the drugged up guy. No damage to the neck or trachea would be consistent with that.
peacefularson wrote:
once again, they can claim all they want, i have not seen any foundation for that claim. i dont care what impresses them. no trauma, no strangulation.
So you didn’t see any of the support that trashcan provided you?
This defense attorney Nelson is outnumbered and outresourced to begin with, but he’s also not up to much. He needs to be much better prepared for the critical cross-exams coming up. And quit making basic mistakes, like open ended questions on cross. I’m wondering if this guy has ever done a real trial.
peacefularson wrote:
once again, they can claim all they want, i have not seen any foundation for that claim. i dont care what impresses them. no trauma, no strangulation.
You can compress the carotid without leaving neck trauma 6kg required on average, and the knee is much blunter than hands or a rope.
trashcan wrote:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19364674/
What kind of Google searches did you do to find this? Post the rest of the results.
This is a 2009 publication from Japan, where they were studying "the dynamics behind hanging by applying an apparatus to cadaver and creating a dummy." They were studying suicides by hanging, as far as I can tell, and concluded that fatal obstruction of the carotid artery may occur when a person hangs themselves and "the ligature transects at the lower part of mandible angle."
That's quite far removed from anything George Floyd or Derek Chauvin were doing. You are confused about the issues in this case. The articles you should be researching and reading relate to and discuss fatal level of fentanyl.
Armstronglivs wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/01/derek-chauvin-trial/
From the above;
Asked his “opinion” on whether that was an appropriate use of force, Pleoger told prosecutors, “When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended the restraint.”
He confirmed that kneeling is a use of force, and that the restraint “should stop” once a subject “is handcuffed and no longer resisting.”
My emphasis in bold. These are not mandatory words. By not saying; our procedures say that you must or shall end the knee restraint under such and such a condition, you are tacitly agreeing that a) the neck restraint is ok in the first place (else how can you end it) and b) you dont have to end it.
i have already gone into the chronology of when a person 'stops resisting'. You often cant know when someone is going to stop resisting until afterwards. c.f. that foottball player toilet fight thread.
If there is negligence on the part of DC that it was surpassingly easy for him to check GFs pulse during the situation, then i am with that 100%. It is surely mindblowingly easy to continually monitor his pulse. Do the procedures say this? is, when the victim shows passive behaviour for sufficient time, suitable methods for checking his wellbeing shall be used, such as pulse and breathing. does it say that? why not if not? note my emphasis on mandatory language, althought the situation is vague.
Pretty crazy that he OD'd two months prior from pills given to him by the drug dealer who was in the car with him the day he died. Also pretty crazy that he had been clean since then and had just started using again, a common factor among OD deaths. He had lost his tolerance, tried popping some pills, and his body couldn't handle it. Hence him not being able to breathe while police had him upright trying to get him in the squad, saying his stomach hurt, calling out to his girlfriend who took him to the hospital last time this happened.
Sounds like more of a reason for him to die than a knee on his back.
pupil3142 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/01/derek-chauvin-trial/From the above;
Asked his “opinion” on whether that was an appropriate use of force, Pleoger told prosecutors, “When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended the restraint.”
He confirmed that kneeling is a use of force, and that the restraint “should stop” once a subject “is handcuffed and no longer resisting.”
My emphasis in bold. These are not mandatory words. By not saying; our procedures say that you must or shall end the knee restraint under such and such a condition, you are tacitly agreeing that a) the neck restraint is ok in the first place (else how can you end it) and b) you dont have to end it.
i have already gone into the chronology of when a person 'stops resisting'. You often cant know when someone is going to stop resisting until afterwards. c.f. that foottball player toilet fight thread.
If there is negligence on the part of DC that it was surpassingly easy for him to check GFs pulse during the situation, then i am with that 100%. It is surely mindblowingly easy to continually monitor his pulse. Do the procedures say this? is, when the victim shows passive behaviour for sufficient time, suitable methods for checking his wellbeing shall be used, such as pulse and breathing. does it say that? why not if not? note my emphasis on mandatory language, althought the situation is vague.
The basic principle that you don't understand is that the police use of force must be proportionate. The prosecution case is that it wasn't - hence the charges. Deadly force can only be justifiably used when there is a threat to life. No one's life was under threat from Floyd - least of all Chauvin's.
The police adviser is reinforcing the prosecution case, by effectively saying that under their procedures Chauvin's force used was disproportionate, as Floyd was no longer resisting. Chauvin could use the knee to restrain Floyd - but not kill him - if he was struggling and resisting, but not once he was subdued, handcuffed and immobilized on the ground. It is as though he drove his car up to arrest Floyd and decided to run over him.
Armstronglivs wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
From the above;
Asked his “opinion” on whether that was an appropriate use of force, Pleoger told prosecutors, “When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended the restraint.”
He confirmed that kneeling is a use of force, and that the restraint “should stop” once a subject “is handcuffed and no longer resisting.”
My emphasis in bold. These are not mandatory words. By not saying; our procedures say that you must or shall end the knee restraint under such and such a condition, you are tacitly agreeing that a) the neck restraint is ok in the first place (else how can you end it) and b) you dont have to end it.
i have already gone into the chronology of when a person 'stops resisting'. You often cant know when someone is going to stop resisting until afterwards. c.f. that foottball player toilet fight thread.
If there is negligence on the part of DC that it was surpassingly easy for him to check GFs pulse during the situation, then i am with that 100%. It is surely mindblowingly easy to continually monitor his pulse. Do the procedures say this? is, when the victim shows passive behaviour for sufficient time, suitable methods for checking his wellbeing shall be used, such as pulse and breathing. does it say that? why not if not? note my emphasis on mandatory language, althought the situation is vague.
The basic principle that you don't understand is that the police use of force must be proportionate. The prosecution case is that it wasn't - hence the charges. Deadly force can only be justifiably used when there is a threat to life. No one's life was under threat from Floyd - least of all Chauvin's.
The police adviser is reinforcing the prosecution case, by effectively saying that under their procedures Chauvin's force used was disproportionate, as Floyd was no longer resisting. Chauvin could use the knee to restrain Floyd - but not kill him - if he was struggling and resisting, but not once he was subdued, handcuffed and immobilized on the ground. It is as though he drove his car up to arrest Floyd and decided to run over him.
i am fully aware that the use of force must be proportionate. deadly force can also be used under threat of serious harm - such as being headbutted in the face by a very large manic person even with his hands cuffed in the squad car (just a possible scenarion - not sayin....). I wont disagree with the rest of your post, since that is indeed what the prosecution case is. I quite like your car analogy on its own.
One problem with deadly force is knowing whether it is or not. If you fire a shotgun at point blank range at someone, then thats pretty obvious. If you punch someone, they fall over, crack their head and die - what is it then? If you push someone, they slip, crack their head and die?? etc. A degree of reckless disregard would be useful for the prosecution, and that is the hinge of the case.
pupil3142 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The basic principle that you don't understand is that the police use of force must be proportionate. The prosecution case is that it wasn't - hence the charges. Deadly force can only be justifiably used when there is a threat to life. No one's life was under threat from Floyd - least of all Chauvin's.
The police adviser is reinforcing the prosecution case, by effectively saying that under their procedures Chauvin's force used was disproportionate, as Floyd was no longer resisting. Chauvin could use the knee to restrain Floyd - but not kill him - if he was struggling and resisting, but not once he was subdued, handcuffed and immobilized on the ground. It is as though he drove his car up to arrest Floyd and decided to run over him.
i am fully aware that the use of force must be proportionate. deadly force can also be used under threat of serious harm - such as being headbutted in the face by a very large manic person even with his hands cuffed in the squad car (just a possible scenarion - not sayin....). I wont disagree with the rest of your post, since that is indeed what the prosecution case is. I quite like your car analogy on its own.
One problem with deadly force is knowing whether it is or not. If you fire a shotgun at point blank range at someone, then thats pretty obvious. If you punch someone, they fall over, crack their head and die - what is it then? If you push someone, they slip, crack their head and die?? etc. A degree of reckless disregard would be useful for the prosecution, and that is the hinge of the case.
The threat that justifies deadly force must be the apprehension that your own life (or someone else's) is at serious risk - such as when someone points a gun at you or comes at you with a knife, with a clear intent to use it.
The exercise of deadly force is justified only at the time that the threat is experienced. The threat must be real, not imagined, at the time a response is made - and the assessment of it must be objective. Your fears aren't sufficient to justify it if most people in your situation wouldn't see the threat as life-threatening. Nor is it justified by "what ifs", such as what if you are pushed over, crack your head and die.
In this trial, Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck became the exercise of deadly force, because it was used to the point of Floyd's death. As difficult as Floyd may have been earlier, at no point did Chauvin or the other officers face a threat to their lives. If the prosecution is able to prove that Chauvin caused Floyd's death - and the evidence is overwhelmingly in that direction - Chauvin's fate is pretty much sealed.
I believe that I went into pubmed and searched “force to compress carotid..” When I went into google scholar and used the same terms this was the first relevant result.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207454.2019.1664520
Armstronglivs wrote:
The threat that justifies deadly force must be the apprehension that your own life (or someone else's) is at serious risk - such as when someone points a gun at you or comes at you with a knife, with a clear intent to use it.
The exercise of deadly force is justified only at the time that the threat is experienced. The threat must be real, not imagined, at the time a response is made - and the assessment of it must be objective. Your fears aren't sufficient to justify it if most people in your situation wouldn't see the threat as life-threatening. Nor is it justified by "what ifs", such as what if you are pushed over, crack your head and die.
In this trial, Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck became the exercise of deadly force, because it was used to the point of Floyd's death. As difficult as Floyd may have been earlier, at no point did Chauvin or the other officers face a threat to their lives. If the prosecution is able to prove that Chauvin caused Floyd's death - and the evidence is overwhelmingly in that direction - Chauvin's fate is pretty much sealed.
As a position on the prosecution case, this is a reasonable point of view. I think there are critical nuances missing, but at this point in time they will play out in court, not internet speculation.
Sorry, the above was in response to muldoon
Muldoon wrote:
trashcan wrote:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19364674/What kind of Google searches did you do to find this? Post the rest of the results.
This is a 2009 publication from Japan, where they were studying "the dynamics behind hanging by applying an apparatus to cadaver and creating a dummy." They were studying suicides by hanging, as far as I can tell, and concluded that fatal obstruction of the carotid artery may occur when a person hangs themselves and "the ligature transects at the lower part of mandible angle."
That's quite far removed from anything George Floyd or Derek Chauvin were doing. You are confused about the issues in this case. The articles you should be researching and reading relate to and discuss fatal level of fentanyl.
If you looked earlier you would have seen the articles I quoted on fentanyl, as well as the 3 heads of toxicology in the Wapo article. I also explained what I knew long before this event occurred(which is non-trivial). The subsequent objection I received was “no signs of neck trauma” despite there obviously being force applied to the neck, so I supplied an article (now 2) based on force to the neck.
I encourage everyone to use google scholar or pubmed to try to understand the medical side of this issue, or really any issue.
My only caveat is that occasionally opinion pieces get published in non or weakly
(Giving suggestions) reviewed journals. That is a relatively uncommon publication, though.
As an aside, I saw a reference to the girlfriend saying that he had quit. I don’t think most guys inform their girlfriends when they pick up again.
peacefularson wrote:
also GFs alleged fiancee just testified today that GF was off of opiates for a few months and then started taking again only two weeks before the incident. undercuts even more the claim that an overdose is unlikely due to tolerance.
and tolerance to cardio-pulomonary effects do not follow tolerance to euphoria to the same degree. im pretty sure thats a big reason overdoses happen in the first place. tolerance to euphoria occurs more rapidly than tolerance to dangeous side effects, like suppressed breathing.
Yeah, interesting to hear from her that he OD's in March and had to spend a week in the hospital.
Also, surprising that no media have reported on this fact.
Armstronglivs wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
From the above;
Asked his “opinion” on whether that was an appropriate use of force, Pleoger told prosecutors, “When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended the restraint.”
He confirmed that kneeling is a use of force, and that the restraint “should stop” once a subject “is handcuffed and no longer resisting.”
My emphasis in bold. These are not mandatory words. By not saying; our procedures say that you must or shall end the knee restraint under such and such a condition, you are tacitly agreeing that a) the neck restraint is ok in the first place (else how can you end it) and b) you dont have to end it.
i have already gone into the chronology of when a person 'stops resisting'. You often cant know when someone is going to stop resisting until afterwards. c.f. that foottball player toilet fight thread.
If there is negligence on the part of DC that it was surpassingly easy for him to check GFs pulse during the situation, then i am with that 100%. It is surely mindblowingly easy to continually monitor his pulse. Do the procedures say this? is, when the victim shows passive behaviour for sufficient time, suitable methods for checking his wellbeing shall be used, such as pulse and breathing. does it say that? why not if not? note my emphasis on mandatory language, althought the situation is vague.
The basic principle that you don't understand is that the police use of force must be proportionate. The prosecution case is that it wasn't - hence the charges. Deadly force can only be justifiably used when there is a threat to life. No one's life was under threat from Floyd - least of all Chauvin's.
The police adviser is reinforcing the prosecution case, by effectively saying that under their procedures Chauvin's force used was disproportionate, as Floyd was no longer resisting. Chauvin could use the knee to restrain Floyd - but not kill him - if he was struggling and resisting, but not once he was subdued, handcuffed and immobilized on the ground. It is as though he drove his car up to arrest Floyd and decided to run over him.
Did you miss the part where the "police adviser" agreed that it is possible for someone to become conscious and quickly act violently?
Armstronglivs wrote:
In this trial, Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck became the exercise of deadly force, because it was used to the point of Floyd's death. As difficult as Floyd may have been earlier, at no point did Chauvin or the other officers face a threat to their lives. If the prosecution is able to prove that Chauvin caused Floyd's death - and the evidence is overwhelmingly in that direction - Chauvin's fate is pretty much sealed.
If the ambulance came five minutes earlier, which it should have, and GF died on the way to the hospital, what would you then blame as the cause of his death?