Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Chauvin Will Walk...

The experts are not saying that death was caused by the restraint stopping blood flow to the brain. They are saying it was due to not sufficient O2 to the brain. There has been testimony that this can and did occur gradually. They testified that Floyd's breathing was not fully obstructed so as to preclude talking but that it was restricted enough that not enough O2 was being received and that O2 deprivation was not sudden but gradual. The State's expert pulmonologist explained how that is possible and likely in this case. It was explained that one could be able to talk up to a point, but that at some point of the lungs not getting enough O2, the person would go unconscious and die. From the testimony to this point, the cause and manner of death are consistent, possible and, in their opinion, likely. There has yet to be expert testimony or an explanation of the nature of Mr. Floyd's death being consistent with an overdose. Maybe that is coming, if/when the defense produces their medical experts, but the jury can not consider evidence that has not been presented to them.

Possible is not absolute and reasonable doubt exists due to the simultaneous drug overdose occurring at the time. This is why he will walk and rightly so. Chauvin did not kill anyone.

I do. There is no doubt that there were lots of ways to avoid their outcomes by both Floyd and Wright. However, the police in their roles also have a responsibility to avoid those outcomes. Deadly force is only appropriate to defend their lives or the lives of others. Police have a responsibility to use the correct level of force for the situation. That's part of their training. Mistakes and mistaken judgement will occur but we are all accountable for our mistakes, at some level. The nature of that accountability is determined by laws.

Civil Unrest Continues In Minneapolis: Mass Detainments, Unlawful Assembly Declared

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/14/...gvI1r6FWXVSNIe59KNyR.mHb5MPaKG2yDs5USsgk

The natives are getting restless, can’t wait to see what they do when the jury renders their verdict .

Again, it is possible that the defense will produce experts that can show evidence that Mr. Floyd's death was due to an overdose. That has not been done yet. The defense has brought up the issue of the death possibly being from an overdose, but, the State's expert medical witnesses have all rejected that as being the cause of death. You may have your opinion on that matter, but the jury is not supposed to bring in their own opinions. They have to look at the facts that have been presented to them. If the defense produces testimony from some recognized expert that the drugs in his system was or could have been the cause of death, THEN, the jury can consider that testimony and make a determination as to which cause of death is likely correct, or, if there has been enough credible conflicting evidence as to produce reasonable doubt.

“Well,,,People do what they do”.

Nancy Pelosi

That's not gonna matter to the right jury.

Not supposed too, But they do and they always will. They are people, not machines.

To think otherwise is not only naive, it’s retarded

As number of encounters increase , numbers of possible bad calls will too .
Like any thing we do , the more active you are in your job , the higher risk numbers become .
Of course that wouldn’t be accepted defense for woulda shoulda people , it is however , a fact of life .
Also the responsibility of anyone who decides to ride around all fugged up and give a cop an attitude when you’re already in the wrong .
Riding dirty can have a lot of meanings , if do , it’s your choice to roll or not to roll those dice .
Kenneth
Yeah , have rolled them many times when younger , just luckier than some , but it was my choice and would have been on me if I had got caught and likely no bleeding hearts

Of course a jury can bring in their own opinions and bias. If that becomes too obvious the judge can set aside their decision. It's rare, but possible. I'm trying to look just at the facts presented. The judge will instruct them to only consider the facts and testimony presented to them. Many people can do that and that's what jury selection is supposed to do; weed out those who can't.

...and the judge also has/her opinions and bias, think Emmet Sullivan, John Roberts, RBG, and the entire 9th circuit, just to name a few.

Reasonable doubt. In my mind it seems pretty easy to create reasonable doubt. As a prosecutor, I'd straight up ask every medical witness if they are 100% certain that Chauvin's method of restraint was the cause of death. It's really hard to arrive at that degree of certainty when he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system and some other serious medical defects.

If the court would permit, I'd have the restraint technique demonstrated for a full 10 minutes during the trial. Chauvin may have weighed 165 dressed out.

For me the pivotal issue is, and has been, the standard of care Chauvin exercised. When you seize a person you have to provide a "reasonable" standard of care. I am not sure the continued application of the restraint as the life slowly passed from Floyd's body was reasonable. Without the weight on Floyd's chest, would his compromised lungs have been able to fully expand and draw in enough air to sustain life? I'd want a medical expert to address that. As I understand it, the restraint Chauvin used does not cause either blood or oxygen deprivation. If Chauvin had relaxed the restraint as Floyd became compliant, would Floyd have been able to draw full breaths? I haven't heard anyone else exploring the weight on the chest aspect. Maybe I am out in the weeds on this.

I don't think reasonable doubt is going to fly in this trial, in that location at this time, in favor of the defense.

If there's any benefit of the doubt, it's going to go against the defense & favor the prosecution.

MM

I don't think reasonable doubt is going to fly in this trial, in that location at this time, in favor of the defense.

If there's any benefit of the doubt, it's going to go against the defense & favor the prosecution.

MM
[/quote]
This, which once again turns one thousand plus years of Common Law on it's head...

Do you not understand Graham vs Connor?

The popo aint killing honor students.

Got a warrant? Are you fugged up? Well hell head on out into the public. Better yet, do stupid chit so you demand police interaction.

Spin that racist lottery wheel.

Ya aint worth a fuggin dime alive but could be worth a couple hundred K half dead, millions full dead ( and your vote count double ).

Lots of speculation, assumption, mind reading, misunderstanding and just plain ignorant (as in lack of actually knowing the law) statements made in this thread. Some of you would be better served researching what the law actually is before you make statements. Then again, this is the internet and everyone is an expert.

Today we got the defense's forensic pathologist's testimony who offered his conclusion that Mr. Floyd's heath condition and the drugs he consumed along with his proximity to the squad car's exhaust (whereby carbon monoxide can also reduce the availability of O2 in his blood) were the cause of death - a cardiac arrhythmia . Now, the jury has some testimony that contradicts the official cause of death on the death certificate. This testimony can induce reasonable doubt in a juror. It's now up to some lay jurors to evaluate differing medical & scientific data and analysis and determine which one is true. Absent being able to do that, we have reasonable doubt as to cause of death. Furthermore, the defense's pathologist ruled out asphyxia as a cause of death citing studies which were previously discussed and discounted by the State's ME. The defense's pathologist stated that the neck restraint did not interfere with any vital function and he calculated the force/weight imparted by Officer Chauvin was significantly less than his 140 lb weight (not including police equipment). The defense's pathologist also stated that bruising should have been seen if there were 50 lbs of force from a bony knee or shin on soft tissue and there was none.

The defense's pathologist would have classified the nature of death on the death certificate as "undetermined" because there were several factors at play: natural causes (heart issues), accidental (drugs), proximity of his restraint to a carbon monoxide source and whatever factor the restraint might have played are classified as a homicide. When multiple possible causes or contributing factors are at play the proper classification per guidance is "undetermined".

All in all a very good morning for the defense and the testimony they needed to inject reasonable doubt into the jury.

The cross examination this afternoon was aggressive and tried to muddy the waters of this morning's testimony but was mostly ineffective IMO. They didn't cut into any significant credibility with the exception of his testimony regarding the influence of carbon monoxide. Since the State's ME did not test for CO in Mr. Floyd's blood, there was no proof of CO involvement and the defense's pathologist did no study of how much CO would have been present in Mr. Floyd's proximity. If the car was running there is no doubt that some CO was present and any amount of CO exposure would have reduced the availability of of Oxygen in the blood. The question is to what degree.

The defense's re-direct to the prosecution's cross was effective and IMO minimized and marginalized the prosecution's points made in their cross examination.

I thought the CO bit was mostly bullshit.

He died because of drugs, a bad heart, struggling with police, and adrenaline. The defense showed a clip of Floyd repeatedly saying he couldn't breathe well before Chauvin even arrived on the scene. That to me, says it all.

If Chauvin walks....."Category five is about to arrive".