George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

yawn wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

I see. Cops are the adults and the rest of us children in your worldview?

To a certain extent, yes. Society has laws for a reason. Those who refuse to follow them need to face punishment. Refusing to exit a vehicle or running from the cops is equivalent to a temper tantrum by a 7 year old.

So you'd shoot 7 year-olds, too? Figures.

Defense witnesses expected today.

I would really like to see Dr Rich's testimony transcript. I cant believe, much as he had a very credible backgrund and appearance, how often he seemed to contradict himself and completely ignore relevant facts.

eg,

he kept changing his mind as to whether GF had a heart attack / cardio arrest etc

he went into great detail of what a fantastic heart GF had

He laboured one of the arteries being fine, ignoring two others with 90% and 75% blockage or whatever.

said GF was acting completely normally and coherently before in the squad car (give over - that is arrant nonsense)

So now i guess we will have a number of similarly eminent physicians who will testify the exact opposite? That ingestion of fentanyl on at least two occasions (before shopping, in the car, and wolfing it down in the squad car), aligned with adrenalin rush, fight or flight response, and then depression, calming, unconscious and death exactly fits the timescale and would have happened with or without knees.

etc etc

That will be a very sad indictment of the adversarial court system and the sad priorities of some of the players in this poor saga.

x hale wrote:

with all the sh*t that happens in these instances why would the guy resist arrest? WTF?

for the same reason he had priors

My lord,

A case that relies 99% on a video now seeks to stop the defense from using parts of the videos.

And the judge now asks, how is this bystander video different from your bystander video?

A; our bystanders were part of the incident.

This is officer chang's video. He wasnt part of the incident???

nelson wins, but some bits need redacting by fast forwarding. that will ming.

minneapolis police chap gives testimony to how GF responds to fentanyl.

street level narcotics investigator for 22 years.

6 may 2019

Traffic stop on red ford explorer, interaction with passenger.

assenger unresponsive and non-compliant.

physically reach in for his hands.

took him out and cuffed him.

Behaviour was nervous, anxious, he continualy turned to drivers seat, i drew my service weapon, i didnt see the passenger put anything in his mouth, exhibit 1051 bodycam of the incident,

everyone in court goes into a huddle. nothing is announced. nelson asks if the passenger was george floyd - it was.

'based on the court ruling, no further questions'.

what? is he just going for an appeal?

that cant surely have gone as planned?

maybe Nelson is on the take with BLM?

The autopsy found “a mixture of methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

“This is what’s called a Speedball – a mixture of an opioid and a stimulant,” Nelson said. “

The evidence will show that Mr. Floyd died of a cardiac arrhythmia that occurred a result of hypertension, his coronary disease, ingestion of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and the adrenaline flowing through his body.”

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/evidence-details-fentanyl-levels-george-floyds-body/89-70cf8552-1810-4462-a726-077b897e7378

Nicole Mackenzie is testifying that excited delirium shows (infers) many of the symptoms that GF had (incoherent, tough, sudden, confused, resistant). This is all in the traiing and the manual has been entered into the exhibits. prosecution didnt do a lot- spoke about responsibilities etc.

At the academy, pupils are taught to control a subject, even if handcuffed, with physical constraint. Put them in the recovery position and call ems.

excited delirium causes sudden heart attacks and death.

Yes that's their argument. Death is an acceptable outcome for any clash between normal citizens and overbearing "authority."

Armstronglivs wrote:

yawn wrote:

To a certain extent, yes. Society has laws for a reason. Those who refuse to follow them need to face punishment. Refusing to exit a vehicle or running from the cops is equivalent to a temper tantrum by a 7 year old.

So you'd shoot 7 year-olds, too? Figures.

You two are so stupid it’s funny. Everyone else sees right through it.

yawn wrote:

You two are so stupid it’s funny. Everyone else sees right through it.

Yeah, it's amazing how many people who were on the GF bandwagon last summer have changed their tune after seeing more facts. Now they are embarrassed and so frustrated and disappointed with all the senseless violence and destruction/looting that occurred.

Not all areas are the same wrote:

Yeah, it's amazing how many people who were on the GF bandwagon last summer have changed their tune after seeing more facts. Now they are embarrassed and so frustrated and disappointed with all the senseless violence and destruction/looting that occurred.

But it always has to be a controversial case which sparked national interest. A cut and dry case doesn't have the same virality.

Cop shoots a 6 year old girl who is trying to give the cop a flower as a thank you--everyone thinks that cop is a murderer and we move on with our lives.

Suspect of nonviolent crime, with violent criminal history, while on a dangerous drug, crying out to his mother to help him, who was previously resisting arrest but is not anymore dies while being physically restrained. Lots of different was to think about that situation-->creates controversy-->spreads message further-->generate lots of information-->strongly held opinions-->generates animosity.

You mean white on black cases?

If Derek Chauvin's name was D'juan Howard there would be no court case and BLM would have to scramble to extort money elsehwere.

I wasn't going for the racial angle rather the ambiguity in the correctness of the officers actions e.g. Tamir Rice vs. Michael Floyd.

I won't deny there is a racial component as well but I wasn't trying to speak toward that.

Well,

Barry Brodd, with an amazing background in use of force etc, is basically saying the officers did exactly the right things. There were things they could have done which would have been worse.

also positional asphyxia is for really fat people.

Also stating that crowd was a factor, 'correctly' distracting DC from GF (as in the crowd was becoming a bigger threat and so he should have acted in that manner - shifting his attention to the crowd)

DC's interactins with GF were following his training, current practices, and were objectively reasonable.

pupil3142 wrote:

Nicole Mackenzie is testifying that excited delirium shows (infers) many of the symptoms that GF had (incoherent, tough, sudden, confused, resistant). This is all in the traiing and the manual has been entered into the exhibits. prosecution didnt do a lot- spoke about responsibilities etc.

At the academy, pupils are taught to control a subject, even if handcuffed, with physical constraint. Put them in the recovery position and call ems.

excited delirium causes sudden heart attacks and death.

The last sentence is not correct. The correct statement would be: “Circumstances that lead to excited delirium can also sometimes cause heart attacks and death”

This is a controversial diagnosis which does not exist in the DSM 5. Also of note, death most frequently occurs after police restraint,

Usually seen as a result of antipsychotics or stimulants, and his meth level was too low to explain it.

pupil3142 doesn't even live in America!

Thoughts?