|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 17,584 Likes: 42
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 17,584 Likes: 42 |
I just started reading day six...
Pretty good turncoat wait to see today's summary.
Also the: "I took too many drugs" video clip...
-OMotS
"If memory serves fails me..."
Quote: ( unnamed) "been prtty deep in the cooler todaay "
Television and radio are most effective when people question little and think even less.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,412 Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,412 Likes: 19 |
You claimed you were legal expert last June and solved the Chauvin Floyd case and said it was cold blooded murder. what a clown An important point concerning the possible ingestion of drugs. In the prosecutions opening, they foretold that their rebuttal to the defenses assertion that a lethal dose of fentanyl was in Floyd's body and was the major contributor to his death, was the fact that Floyd had an elevated tolerance to these drugs due to his continued and prolonged use.
When the defense cross examined Floyd's girlfriend, she testified that Floyd had been clean, and she only noticed a change in his behavior and suspicion of using approximately two weeks before his death. I don't think two weeks would be a long enough time to obtain any kind of tolerance that would supersede a lethal dose of fentanyl. This was a great job by the defense and set up their play later on that Floyd's primary cause of death was a drug overdose, which would be a reasonable explanation considering the facts of the case, and any person with half a brain would consider reasonable doubt. Agreed. That point was made by the defense and it is accurate; ODs often occur when an addict is off opioids for awhile and then goes back on them and taking the same amount they had previously. Good point! It certainly goes to reasonable doubt. The testimony of the coroner and medical Drs. who performed or reviewed the autopsy will be key. If they can get any doubt as to whether the drugs were the cause of death, the case should end there. But - - - as in the OJ case, it doesn't always come down to what is said or proven in court. You know these jurors are well aware of what the consequences of an unpopular not guilty verdict would be. This is way too politicized. It would take a brave jury to acquit on the more serious charge of murder, based on any reasonable doubt. The level of doubt in this case, I believe, would have to be beyond just what seems reasonable but would need to be proven to almost a certainty that Chauvin did not cause Floyd's death. A hung jury is always a possibility, but that's just kicking the can down the street. You seem to have a very good grasp of this case and some expert knowledge of your own. Keep the commentary coming please. It's informative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 17,584 Likes: 42
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 17,584 Likes: 42 |
So on Friday night the prosecution dumped a just written report on the defense in an attempt to minimize the damage of the: "I ate too many drugs" video clip. https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...lnerabilities-in-prosecution-of-chauvin/
-OMotS
"If memory serves fails me..."
Quote: ( unnamed) "been prtty deep in the cooler todaay "
Television and radio are most effective when people question little and think even less.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,170 Likes: 2
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,170 Likes: 2 |
An important point concerning the possible ingestion of drugs. In the prosecutions opening, they foretold that their rebuttal to the defenses assertion that a lethal dose of fentanyl was in Floyd's body and was the major contributor to his death, was the fact that Floyd had an elevated tolerance to these drugs due to his continued and prolonged use.
When the defense cross examined Floyd's girlfriend, she testified that Floyd had been clean, and she only noticed a change in his behavior and suspicion of using approximately two weeks before his death. I don't think two weeks would be a long enough time to obtain any kind of tolerance that would supersede a lethal dose of fentanyl. This was a great job by the defense and set up their play later on that Floyd's primary cause of death was a drug overdose, which would be a reasonable explanation considering the facts of the case, and any person with half a brain would consider reasonable doubt. Agreed. That point was made by the defense and it is accurate; ODs often occur when an addict is off opioids for awhile and then goes back on them and taking the same amount they had previously. Good point! It certainly goes to reasonable doubt. The testimony of the coroner and medical Drs. who performed or reviewed the autopsy will be key. If they can get any doubt as to whether the drugs were the cause of death, the case should end there. But - - - as in the OJ case, it doesn't always come down to what is said or proven in court. You know these jurors are well aware of what the consequences of an unpopular not guilty verdict would be. This is way too politicized. It would take a brave jury to acquit on the more serious charge of murder, based on any reasonable doubt. The level of doubt in this case, I believe, would have to be beyond just what seems reasonable but would need to be proven to almost a certainty that Chauvin did not cause Floyd's death. A hung jury is always a possibility, but that's just kicking the can down the street. You seem to have a very good grasp of this case and some expert knowledge of your own. Keep the commentary coming please. It's informative. Since when does a person in America have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not guilty?
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
66 members (arky65, 35, 10gaugemag, 260Remguy, anothergun, 3 invisible),
1,905
guests, and
743
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,644
Posts18,533,687
Members74,041
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
