Chauvin Juror Lied about BLM Activism. Could Help Chauvin's Appeal

runnerboy70 wrote:

You keep saying Trump supporters are dumb, don't you?

I'm not sure what you saying, but about half of Trump's supporters are the fanatical ones like those that attend his rallies. The other half are people that are going to support a Republican no matter what. My assumption is a jury that would acquit Chauvin would come from the first group and M.A.G.A. is how I describe them.

I don't believe I often refer to other people as being dumb. It's easier for us older guys to accept that other people can have different opinions and I rarely insult other posters.

fattyatthegym wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

The professional who did his autopsy testified that Floyd died of cardiac arrest from the stress of being arrested, the drugs in his system and pre-existing heart conditions. It's almost like people here are talking out of their ass and didn't watch the case at all (I know, people talking out of their ass on LRC, very unheard of).

A few other people spoke also, but I guess doesn’t matter since you didn’t watch the case. Just grabbing a sound bite that supports your beliefs.

None of the other people did a medical autopsy to determine cause of death, hence why I am placing more weight on his opinion. In this case, I don't have "beliefs" I have actual facts inferred from medical evidence. Since nobody else examined Floyd's body to determine his cause of death, which showed no signs of hypoxia as the prosecution suggests, then everybody else's opinion is purely conjecture.

2600 bro wrote:

Let it Rupp is really spinning in this thread.

One of my favorite moron posters here on LRC!

Stay mad.

If I receive a shoutout from THE 2600 bro, then I know I am doing something right. Whenever you resort straight to name-calling and trolling I know you really have nothing to say.

Chauvin got a mistrial and it's going to get appealed. I hope all your donations to Patrisse Cullors' summer home didn't go to waste over all of this nonsense.

Let it Rupp wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Let it Rupp is really spinning in this thread.

One of my favorite moron posters here on LRC!

Stay mad.

If I receive a shoutout from THE 2600 bro, then I know I am doing something right. Whenever you resort straight to name-calling and trolling I know you really have nothing to say.

Chauvin got a mistrial and it's going to get appealed. I hope all your donations to Patrisse Cullors' summer home didn't go to waste over all of this nonsense.

There was a verdict and not a mistrial. Have you been away for awhile?

Let it Rupp wrote:

fattyatthegym wrote:

A few other people spoke also, but I guess doesn’t matter since you didn’t watch the case. Just grabbing a sound bite that supports your beliefs.

None of the other people did a medical autopsy to determine cause of death, hence why I am placing more weight on his opinion. In this case, I don't have "beliefs" I have actual facts inferred from medical evidence. Since nobody else examined Floyd's body to determine his cause of death, which showed no signs of hypoxia as the prosecution suggests, then everybody else's opinion is purely conjecture.

Well, this is what the medical examiner actually said:

The language Baker used to report Floyd's cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." He characterized "cardiopulmonary arrest" as "fancy medical lingo for the heart and the lungs stopped," while "complicating" means "occurring in the setting of."

And this:

"In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions," Baker said. In another statement, he said the restraint "tipped him over the edge."

And this:

Baker said the top-line cause of death is the "most important thing that precipitated the death." Fentanyl was listed in the "other contributing conditions" section. Baker said that indicates they "played a role in the death but didn't directly cause the death."

"That is, he experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest in the context of law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression," Baker said. "It was the stress of that interaction that tipped him over the edge, given his underlying heart disease and his toxicological status."

The issue is whether Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck was a substantial factor in causing Floyd's death. Baker's testimony clearly allowed the jury to reach that conclusion. So I'm not sure what your point is.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

If I receive a shoutout from THE 2600 bro, then I know I am doing something right. Whenever you resort straight to name-calling and trolling I know you really have nothing to say.

Chauvin got a mistrial and it's going to get appealed. I hope all your donations to Patrisse Cullors' summer home didn't go to waste over all of this nonsense.

There was a verdict and not a mistrial. Have you been away for awhile?

"There was also widespread election fraud!"

I wonder how long this delusion will last because it's also, conveiniently, entirely forgotten.

I love it.

Only on LetsRun could this many people be talking about a dude convicted of murder as if he's some jaywalker who got unfairly ticketed.

You would say this because you don't know what the definition of "substantial factor" - which is a factor that would have caused Floyd's death even if not in the presence of other contributing factors.

"In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions," implies he didn't think the neck compression would have killed Floyd if it were not for his heart conditions. So...not a substantial factor. Nice try though.

You would say this because you don't know what the definition of "substantial factor" - which is a factor that would have caused Floyd's death even if not in the presence of other contributing factors.

"In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions," implies he didn't think the neck compression would have killed Floyd if it were not for his heart conditions. If he did then why would he say "by virtue of his heart conditions" So...not a substantial factor. Nice try though.

Maybe cops shouldnt use such force so as to inadvertently kill people with heart conditions?

Is that too much to ask of our poor police?

Muldoon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is no end to the whining about this verdict. So many staunch defenders of a cop who abuses his power to kill another human being. Like so many seeing this from the outside, we are witnessing the ugly underbelly of American culture - and their voices are clamoring here in defence of their "hero".

Someone alerted me to a thread about your awful country, which is basically an apartheid state as it turns out. I suppose your obsession with America and endless race-baiting here on LRC makes some sense as kind of weird avoidance/denial mechanism of yours. You are one creepy person, that's for sure.

This sure is the place for creepy people. And you are one of its cheerleaders.

In the good old days juries acquitted white men who murdered blacks. Letsrun has trouble coping with the fact that times may be changing.

2600 bro wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

You would say this because you don't know what the definition of "substantial factor" - which is a factor that would have caused Floyd's death even if not in the presence of other contributing factors.

"In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions," implies he didn't think the neck compression would have killed Floyd if it were not for his heart conditions. If he did then why would he say "by virtue of his heart conditions" So...not a substantial factor. Nice try though.

Maybe cops shouldnt use such force so as to inadvertently kill people with heart conditions?

Is that too much to ask of our poor police?

But cops die sometimes so it is okay for them to cowardly overextend their use of force 🙄

2600 bro wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

You would say this because you don't know what the definition of "substantial factor" - which is a factor that would have caused Floyd's death even if not in the presence of other contributing factors.

"In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions," implies he didn't think the neck compression would have killed Floyd if it were not for his heart conditions. If he did then why would he say "by virtue of his heart conditions" So...not a substantial factor. Nice try though.

Maybe cops shouldnt use such force so as to inadvertently kill people with heart conditions?

Is that too much to ask of our poor police?

Well the "such force" you are referring to was taught to Floyd by his department (no matter how much his idiot chief wants to throw Chauvin under the bus so he doesn't catch any blame), so it was completely legal and justified and does not constitute as a "felony" as required by the 2nd degree murder charge.

If the neck restraint is causing people on drugs and/or with heart conditions to inadvertently die, then YES, the technique needs to change. These are separate issues, but I like where this is heading, 2600 Bro, let's keep it up.

Let it Rupp wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Maybe cops shouldnt use such force so as to inadvertently kill people with heart conditions?

Is that too much to ask of our poor police?

Well the "such force" you are referring to was taught to Floyd by his department (no matter how much his idiot chief wants to throw Chauvin under the bus so he doesn't catch any blame), so it was completely legal and justified and does not constitute as a "felony" as required by the 2nd degree murder charge.

If the neck restraint is causing people on drugs and/or with heart conditions to inadvertently die, then YES, the technique needs to change. These are separate issues, but I like where this is heading, 2600 Bro, let's keep it up.

The confidence of ignorance. What is "completely legal" does not result in a felony conviction. Must be hard to see through your hood.

Let it Rupp wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Maybe cops shouldnt use such force so as to inadvertently kill people with heart conditions?

Is that too much to ask of our poor police?

Well the "such force" you are referring to was taught to Floyd by his department (no matter how much his idiot chief wants to throw Chauvin under the bus so he doesn't catch any blame), so it was completely legal and justified and does not constitute as a "felony" as required by the 2nd degree murder charge.

If the neck restraint is causing people on drugs and/or with heart conditions to inadvertently die, then YES, the technique needs to change. These are separate issues, but I like where this is heading, 2600 Bro, let's keep it up.

"Just following orders" has definitely protected people in the past! I like where this is headed! let's keep it up!

Let it Rupp wrote:

You would say this because you don't know what the definition of "substantial factor" - which is a factor that would have caused Floyd's death even if not in the presence of other contributing factors.

"In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions," implies he didn't think the neck compression would have killed Floyd if it were not for his heart conditions. So...not a substantial factor. Nice try though.

You tried this same argument in another thread at the start of the trial. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. To be a "substantial factor" in causing someone's death, there is NO requirement that the act would have caused the death even if there had been no other contributing factors.

Your mistake is that you relied on a generic legal dictionary for the definition of causation. Your source was not specific to the law in Minnesota, or any state. I previously cited for you an article by a law professor from the University of Minnesota which discussed the legal issues which were expected to come up in Chauvin's trial. One of those issues was the cause of death, and that Minnesota law professor discussed the law of causation in Minnesota. Your interpretation of the law is wrong.

But the reality is that we don't have to debate what the law in Minnesota requires. We can all now read exactly what the judge in Chauvin's trial told the jury regarding causation. Suffice it to say, there was nothing in the judge's instruction to the jury suggesting that you know what you are talking about.

The instruction to the jury on causation is at the top of page 4:

Understand that these instructions are standard and have been approved by previous courts.

I get it that for some weird reason you want Chauvin to beat the rap, and that you are now grasping for straws. But when you repeat an argument that has already been proven wrong, you look kind of foolish.

The idiot juror who lied and then tried to play the media circuit to be treated like a hero for his vote should be charged for perjury. He deserves the rightful scorn from all Americans for lying and risking creating grounds for a retrial.

The great irony would be if his foolish behavior resulted in the murderer getting another chance for acquittal. I don't think the black activists would feel too kindly toward him then.

fasciz wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

The same exact case was brought up on this board - a suspect on drugs dies with a cops knee on his back and neck - except the guy who died was white, yet nobody cares.

I care.

Prove to me that the juror did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

Impartiality is not the issue; the juror could be considered “tainted” for having lied during voir dire. I don’t know why jurors can’t just be upfront all the time, it’s much better for everyone for you to get everything out in the open than to have it revealed later. And never, never lie under oath.