Further, if there was "zero evidence of asphyxiation" Chauvin and the other officers would not be facing homicide charges.
That isn't exactly correct. If you actually had ever been in the US, or understood the legal system at all, you'd know why.
But you can't provide "the reason why". A homicide by definition is an unlawful killing. So why are they charged with that?
"It hasn't been presented by anyone in the case as fact. It remains your concoction."
So you can't answer the question.
Prosecutors don't proffer charges without evidence in support - a motion to dismiss would have seen the charges thrown out by a court if it were otherwise.
The homicide charges are the result of an investigation that has adduced sufficient evidence to present a case against the accused. There is therefore a prima facie case they killed Floyd. I realise it is hard for Klan sympathisers to accept that.
I can answer it fine. And you know I can.
But I first took the opportunity to point out, using YOUR own words, the hypocrisy in your silly statement that attempted to trivialize the evidence submitted in the case regarding Floyd's prior ingestion of lethal amounts of drugs to escape arrest ("It remains your concoction"), with your contradictory acceptance as fact the charges of murder against Floyd. And you just did it again (" a motion to dismiss would have seen the charges thrown out by a court if it were otherwise"). Along those lines, a simple google search would have showed you that the cops' motion to dismiss is still pending. You seem like one of those excessively snotty posters who say any stupid thing that occurs to them, expect other people to do the work proving them wrong, then declare victory if they don't waste the time doing so.
Anyway, your original premise - "if there was 'zero evidence of asphyxiation' Chauvin and the other officers would not be facing homicide charges" - is WRONG. I politely mentioned to you that it was not necessarily correct. But instead of easily figuring that out for yourself, you call me a Klan sympathizer, and challenge me with a bunch of bogus, made-up legal assertions you know nothing about ("There is therefore a prima facie case they killed Floyd"). I realize you are continuously posting about American affairs that you know nothing about from some undisclosed country, but can't you do a little bit of research before posting?
In a preliminary report, filed in court, the Hennepin county examiner stated the autopsy of Floyd "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation." You can read that here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/george-floyd-autopsy-shows-no-signs-of-traumatic-asphyxia-or-strangulation/ar-BB14NLpa
In a subsequent report, asphyxia is not mentioned (but it does say "No life-threatening injuries identified.") You can actually read the report here (although we all know you won't): https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf
The original criminal complaint in the case says: "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation." You can read that here (although we know you won't): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246-Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.html
Contrary to your stupid statement, the Hennepin county attorneys office believes they don't need evidence of asphyxiation to charge the cops here with murder. We know they believe that, because THEY HAVE NO evidence of asphyxiation.
Basically, this was all a long and fun way of showing your are a twit, and that your statement: "if there was 'zero evidence of asphyxiation' Chauvin and the other officers would not be facing homicide charges" is WRONG. YOU are WRONG. And I realize it's hard for childish, Karl Marx fans from an undisclosed country who know JACK ZIP about American criminal law to accept that. But there it is.