George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

crooked cops wrote:

Every cop is a criminal. When we eliminate all the cops, the crime rate will plummet.

Cops take an oath to uphold the law. When a cop commits a crime, which every cop does every day, we need to have the following punishments:

For a parking or traffic offense, the cop needs 5 years in maximum security. No bail, no trial, proceed to immediate sentencing and punishment.

For a petty crime or misdemeanor, the cop needs 40 years in Supermax. No bail, no trial, proceed to immediate sentencing and punishment.

For a felony, the cop needs 20 years in Supermax, then proceed to the death penalty. No bail, no trial, proceed to immediate sentencing and punishment.

For all you crybabies who think that the cop should have a trial and have civil rights - no, just no. Cops have been getting away with their crimes forever, and it needs to stop now. Skip the niceties and proceed directly to punishment.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

crooked cops wrote:

Every cop is a criminal. When we eliminate all the cops, the crime rate will plummet.

Cops take an oath to uphold the law. When a cop commits a crime, which every cop does every day, we need to have the following punishments:

For a parking or traffic offense, the cop needs 5 years in maximum security. No bail, no trial, proceed to immediate sentencing and punishment.

For a petty crime or misdemeanor, the cop needs 40 years in Supermax. No bail, no trial, proceed to immediate sentencing and punishment.

For a felony, the cop needs 20 years in Supermax, then proceed to the death penalty. No bail, no trial, proceed to immediate sentencing and punishment.

For all you crybabies who think that the cop should have a trial and have civil rights - no, just no. Cops have been getting away with their crimes forever, and it needs to stop now. Skip the niceties and proceed directly to punishment.

Dude what are you smoking.

Muldoon wrote:

Borya wrote:

My comment about misplaced certainty was mostly in reference to your incorrect claim that falling from a cliff results in certain death and that you "guess" knee restraints aren't fatal, despite examples of them causing some deaths.

Wait, you didn't like my numbered list in response to your question "why would he have knowingly taken a dose which he expected to kill him?" I was hoping you would add to that, man. But you just moved on to the next batch of speculations. I'm frowning as I type this.

I was using the 100 foot cliff as a way of illustrating the unlikelihood of an extraordinarily rare factual circumstance, but that seems to have completely escaped you. If I change the example to 500 feet, will that help? 500 feet and the light bulb comes on?

I didn’t say I’d guess knee restraints aren’t or can’t be fatal. I said I’d guess there are many cases in which they are not fatal. I base that guess on the fact that we know the police use knee restraints all the time, and you have only listed three deaths you attribute to them (Floyd, Timpa, and someone else). If knee restraints were often fatal, we would know about it.

Borya wrote:

You and armstronglivs both think you've solved this case (as Sherlock Holmes said "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"). You think it's impossible for Floyd to have survived once he ingested a quantity of drugs, so you don't have to consider the knee restraint and armstronglivs thinks he doesn't have to consider the drugs as the knee restraint clearly killed him. But neither drugs, nor the knee restraint has actually been eliminated as a possible cause.

I'd be interested to know your sources which indicate he couldn't have survived his dose of fentanyl.

I think it is highly unlikely that anyone survives that much fentanyl. The sources are easy to find, and include the medical examiner’s notes that you posted. The poster named “comdeyre1i3f 2” also posted a source in response to YOUR post that discusses lethal levels of fentanyl. You should go back and read it.

My point, and I really don’t understand having to explain this over and over, is that if the fentanyl killed him or even if it is likely that the fentanyl killed him – and it sure looks like it did – then it doesn’t really matter what Chauvin did. There is reasonable doubt.

Borya wrote:

This article suggests he could have survived (

https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/2358491/carl-hart/we-know-how-george-floyd-died

):

"Floyd had a negligible amount of drugs in his system — 19 nanograms per milliliter of methamphetamine and 2.9 nanograms per milliliter of THC...

He also had 11 nanograms of fentanyl in his blood. That number, in and of itself, doesn’t tell us much. Immediately after a person dies, the blood concentration of fentanyl increases significantly, so knowing only the post-mortem amount does not tell us about Mr. Floyd’s level of intoxication before his death.

What’s more, the same amount of fentanyl that produces euphoria in a tolerant user can result in an overdose in a newer user. That’s why, along with the toxicology report, we have to look at Floyd’s behavior shortly before his death... [which he doesn't find consistent with one who has taken an overdose]."

That article you cited speaks for itself. I don’t know what to tell you, man. You are starting to remind me of David St. Hubbins (“I believe virtually everything I read, and it makes me a more open minded person.”)

The author, from the publication Asharq Al-Awsat, says, after pretending up front in the article that THC (marijuana) levels are what people are concerned about, that “He also had 11 nanograms of fentanyl in his blood. That number, in and of itself, doesn’t tell us much.” He’s wrong. The entire reason levels of drugs are even measured is because they tell you A LOT. 11 mg/nL of fentanyl, the most dangerous drug available in America, is a LOT. We can learn A LOT from that measurement.

Borya wrote:

"the prosecution may argue those things - the fentanyl wasn't lethal, or Chauvin killed him before the fentanyl did. I just don't see those as reasonable at all. Neither do you."

Why do you say I don't think that's reasonable?

I say that I don't think those scenarios are reasonable because 11mg/nL of fentanyl is fatal, whether you, Armstronglives and Asharq Al-Awsat feel like believing it or not. I say I don't think those scenarios are reasonable because it would one bizarre set of facts if a guy dying of a fatal overdose of fentanyl, which is a drug that shuts down one’s respiratory system and causes unconsciousness, also just happens, at the exact same time, to be one of the few people ever killed by a knee restraint. We are getting close to, or exceeding, the crazy cliff shooting hypothetical I provided, that unfortunately went flying over your head.

Borya wrote:

How quickly does fentanyl cause an overdose? If almost immediately, why didn't he die before he was restrained? Or if it took a couple of hours, why not after the ambulance arrived? The fact he seemed to become more distressed when restrained, the went unconscious, then died, in the 8/9 minutes, suggests to me the restraint was likely a significant factor.

It’s fast. Rapid onset. It causes respiratory distress, then unconsciousness, then death. It’s not a couple of hours. Sources are easy to find.

Borya wrote:

If Carl Hart's position is correct (that we can't draw inferences from the amount of fentanyl in his blood) it seems the claims he died of an overdose were based on quack science.

Its not correct. He’s wrong. In fact, if he said that, he’s bananas or ridiculously biased. The entire reason drug levels are even measured is precisely because you can draw strong inferences from them. We wouldn’t waste time determining drug levels if there was no information to be gained from the measurement. And man, if you really believe autopsy determinations of drug levels and overdoses is “quack science” then I can’t help you any more after this post. That would be a LOT of medical examiner’s around the world practicing quack science nearly every day.

Borya wrote:

But if Hart is wrong and we can reasonably conclude he would have died from an overdose, isn't it still important, from a legal perspective, whether the overdose did kill him? Not only might it be the case that Chauvin did kill him, but as Chauvin didn't know he would have died from an overdose, his restraint can be construed as attempted murder.

Yes, it’s very important from a legal perspective “whether the overdose did kill him.” I’d say it’s the most important issue, from a legal perspective. If it can be reasonably concluded that it did kill him – and it sure looks that way – then there is reasonable doubt as to Chauvin’s guilt.

If you are really interested, and aren’t just punking me with this weirdo speculation act, then focus on the fentanyl. Learn about the drug, what it does and how much Floyd had in his body. Then think about reasonable doubt. Don’t fly off on random speculations like you’ve been doing, just consider whether 11mg/nl of fentanyl in a person that has just ingested the drug a short time ago, and who is complaining about respiratory distress, and then falls unconscious, and then dies soon thereafter, raises reasonable doubt as to whether a knee restraint was the cause of death.

Good luck to you Boryat, in your future intellectual endeavors.

Tatar wrote:

trashcan wrote:

That is not an IF, and the more people think that it is an IF, the more racial prejudice will impact people’s lives.

Two simple questions:

1) Do you accept that you have a subconscious

2) do you accept the selfish gene concept.

If you accept both then you accept that everybody has subconscious racial bias affecting their behavior, and racial bias in the presence of power inequity serves to reinforce the inequity.

Having subconscious racial bias doesn’t make you a bad person, it makes you a person. Not working to address that bias makes you a person who causes unnecessary harm.

Selfish gene isn't a very good argument to use in this context. Other white people are not necessarily genetically similar to other white people and black people are not similar to other black people. The only genes they share are the ones that produce skin color which is an very very very very small percentage of your overall genetic profile.