Derek Chauvin Murder Trial is on

It will be very interesting to see how the defense deals with the clear visual evidence of Chauvin's failure to render assistance.

Thank goodness for bystanders with cellphones.

 

Why do you think the defense didn't object?

So what? It doesn't mean the jury shouldn't be educated on the issue.

The defense didn't object, so what is the judge supposed to do?

The cause of death was low oxygen levels in Floyd's body, at least according to the prosecution.

Huh? This doesn't make sense. Why can't two doctors agree?

But it can be manslaughter.

 

That depends on whether one characterizes a computer software consultant with well over 40 years in the practice as a scientist or not. There is a science to computer systems analysis and programming. So I would say yes, somewhat.

You can suggest any irrelevant nonsense you want, whether it's true or not or makes sense or not. That is your prerogative. You know nothing about me so you just make up crap that you believe helps your argument(s). I studied engineering at CCNY for a couple of semesters until I changed my major to mathematics, so you would be dead wrong in your inane "suggestions". In any case the point is wholly irrelevant to the Chauvin murder case.

Someone who has grammatical issues ("would have") should not be pretending to be an attorney or have any knowledge of how the legal system works. In any case, what you would do or not do is as irrelevant to the Floyd case as most of the arguments you've made so far. Let me know what case law you would employ in your brief to challenge a Rooker-Feldman defense counselor so you can show everyone what kind of hot shot attorney you are. Your pretenses are not very impressive.

It's very obvious you keep making crap up about me with every post. If you continue to do that I will consider your posts generally dishonest and terminate all discussion with you as I've already done with another dishonest poster. This issue is not about me.

In legal terms in the State of Michigan the substantive causal factor fulfills one of the requirements for a finding of Second-Degree Murder. So it's not about what I know to be true it's about the facts relative to the Chauvin murder case. Whether the jury agrees or not is up to the jury, not me.

You mean unlike you? I could very easily say the same for you but I could care less about you. Again this issue is not about me no matter how hard you try to make it about me.

If you actually read my posts for comprehension you would know I made my position quite clear.

 

No, she didn't, at least not on the point of urging Chauvin to pay attention to Floyd's wellbeing.

Who are you kidding?



How did these folks prevent Chauvin from getting off Floyd?

 

1. Why would the police expect people living in the urban hell holes they are tasked with policing to respect them?
2. Why should police officers ever choose to arrest anyone for a crime that usually results in an automatic release without bail?
3. Why would anyone want to be a police officer in any of our rapidly collapsing cities.

IMO, given the abject failure of the entire criminal justice system, the police confronting Floyd should have at most slapped him with a summons, asked him a few questions to see if he knew where the fake bill came from, and said "goodbye".

 

I am distressed by the american public's willingness -- its determination, really -- to pronounce guilt or innocence before all the evidence is presented, and especially without hearing Chauvin's side of the story.

I think he needs to testify, though of course he has the right to remain silent. This way, he can say that he had no intent to kill Floyd, and the jury (not the internet) can decide whether he is credible or not.

 

Agree with all except "the entire criminal justice system." Day to day, and in most places, the courts get it right.

 

I think the defense needs to explain Floyd's low oxygen level as a result of something other than police action.

 

The prosecution presented strong evidence Floyd didn't have a heart attack.

 

We'll see

 

No, not all because Floyd was dead when Chauvin was still on his back.

How come you already made up your mind Chauvin isn't even guilty of manslaughter?

 

This discussion is neither about linguistics and FYI I am a ''hot shot scientist'' and I am providing you with my CSI of video observations with additional scientific facts .

Asphyxia :
noun

1. a condition arising when the body is deprived of oxygen, causing unconsciousness or death; suffocation

Fact 1: The head can tilt left of right angular with no restriction to airways

Fact 2: Voice (sound waves) require exhaling and inhaling

Deceased words : ''I can't breathe''

Scientifically requiring the ability to breathe .

Fact 3: No bruising to neck

Fact 4: Significant force causes bruising (strangulation bruising evident of this)

Fact 5: Push on the side of your neck with your fist as hard as you can and you can still breathe

Fact 6: Cause of death was independent of the deceased neck

 

Apologies, wrong State, that would be Minnesota.

 

Thanks for all that but given your posts thus far and your anonymity Mr. "hot shot scientist", I'll go with the expert witnesses on the science relative to the actual case, as well as the evidence, facts and other testimony pertinent to the Chauvin murder. Try convincing someone else, you haven't made any kind of argument(s) that would convince anyone other than yourself or a like-minded person. The only thing I see as a positive with the above post is that you've refrained from making any false claims about me.

 

1. Medical doctors are not expert witness's of science and the physics involved .

2. I am not trying to convince you .

3. The scientific evidence I provided demonstrates the scientific truths .

Did you try fact 5 or fact 1 ?

The defense only needs to demonstrate those facts to prove without doubt the cause of death was independent of the neck .

I am not biased in anyway and there is of course a bigger picture involved in this because the deceased was visually ''brown'' .

It seems to me as if people are fighting a fight that no longer exists in the USA , feeling repressed .

FYI if it was the opposite way around , a visual ''white'' looking person was deceased , my analysis would still be the same .

 

Contradicting their own ME who found cardio-pulmanary arrest to be the cause of death.

 

Yes she and why she refused to testify about her statements to investgators and then started arguing with the defense and the court and the judge had to warn her twice. She also testified it is standard practice to keep EMT'S and parametics back until the area is secured and that the paramedics choose to do a load and go because it wasn't. That was backed by the tesitmony of the paramedics.

Nope and neither were the paramedics and others who testified to proceedure.

 

I said the paramedics decided the scene was not secure enough to begin treatment and ressucitation efforts at the scene so they decided to do a "load and go".

 

The ME said the heart problems and drugs may contributed to the main cause of death, action by the police.

 

No it does not. He did not die of asphyxiation.

 

That was not the ME's testimony.

 

Cardiopulmonary arrest means the heart ceased to function, it doesn't mean a heart attack which is called a myocardial infarction. You can have a heart attack without cardiopulmonary arrest. You can survive a heart attack without any medical intervention but you can't survive a cardiopulmonary arrest without intervention. I know because I've had a couple of attacks and I'm still around to post this. The ME did NOT rule a heart attack was the cause of death, you're trying to conflate 2 different medical diagnoses.

 

She told the cops Chauvin's life was in danger. It doesn't matter if the judge rebuked her. The defense did not dispute she warned the cops.

Don't get led into following shiny objects.

 

And that shows why you have no clue what you're talking about. Medical doctors are often used as expert witnesses and the study and practice of medicine is absolutely a science. It also involves the science of physics to some degree.

You could have fooled me.

You haven't done any such thing in this particular case.

They are not "facts" relevant to this case nor am I interested in your irrelevant "facts". I am interested in the facts, evidence and testimony in the Chauvin case, not your nonsense.

The defense only needs to convince 1 juror that there is reasonable doubt in order to prevent a guilty verdict, period, Mr. Pretend Attorney.

The former is highly disputable and the latter involves a lot more than that.

And just as irrelevant.

 

All because Floyd did not follow the lawful orders of the officers and physically resisted them. He chose several terrible options that day.