1. #18381
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Nobody said he died of covid, only that he tested positive for it. That's a pretty big tell about where you're coming from with this.
    /snort - died from COVID in 9.5 minutes.... Racists seem to only embrace science when it allows their ilk to go free.

  2. #18382
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    How did they not include the entire blood toxicity report? Where are you seeing that?
    Not saying that they did, just "if" they didn't. I haven't been watching closely enough to see if they only submitted specific parts of the report as evidence or if submitted the whole thing and just referenced parts.

  3. #18383
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    I don't honestly know if I can. I admit I don't want to scan through hours of trial to find it brought up and would you accept any link that wasn't an official newspaper publication?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2a5_story.html

    Touches on it but they won't actually go into details about waving it away as something they always try to do.. I can maybe find a screen cap?

    This one is a bit better

    https://news.wttw.com/2021/04/10/hea...-cause-medical
    Thanks...from your source:
    That should put to rest any of your concerns about alternate reasons for Floyd's death.
    These are also great to read, just to firm up your position that the cop killed him:
    Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker ruled Floyd's death last May a homicide and identified the cause as "cardiopulmonary arrest" that occurred during "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" -- all findings he stood by in court on Friday.

    Asked about the autopsy and Floyd's death certificate, Baker described the "top line of the cause of death" as "what you think is the most important thing that precipitated the death."

    "Other things that you think played a role in the death but were not direct causes get relegated to what's known as the 'other significant conditions' part of the death certificate," he said. "For example, you know, Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint. His heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint."

  4. #18384
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Thanks...from your source:

    That should put to rest any of your concerns about alternate reasons for Floyd's death.
    These are also great to read, just to firm up your position that the cop killed him:
    Just to back up this point: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/henn...psy-6-3-20.pdf

    Literally the autopsy report.

    Cause of death is literally the case title: "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
    SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION"

  5. #18385
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Thanks...from your source:

    That should put to rest any of your concerns about alternate reasons for Floyd's death.
    These are also great to read, just to firm up your position that the cop killed him:
    I won't post anymore here apparently my avatar/signature is a violation and this is baiting comments? Will leave you to your section.

  6. #18386
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Weird, not sure what's up. This should work, note that I snipped out a paragraph between those two quotes - https://abc11.com/derek-chauvin-wont...eath/10516594/
    Thanks - yeah, that was odd. I'm seeing the quotes now. Those statements are interesting...and frankly I'm still not following the entire issue.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    I won't post anymore here apparently my avatar/signature is a violation and this is baiting comments? Will leave you to your section.
    It's noted that your own source proved your position to be objectively false. Your lack of redress or any other comment to your internal revelation just backs up previous conclusions on your posts and character.

  7. #18387
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    I won't post anymore here apparently my avatar/signature is a violation and this is baiting comments? Will leave you to your section.
    LOL, so the ban evading alt account is lying, because you don't have a signature, never did. And if you had your avatar as a violation, you wouldn't still be able to use it.

    And if it violated this "section" it would violate every section, and you wouldn't be able to post using either in any section.

  8. #18388
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Just to back up this point: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/henn...psy-6-3-20.pdf

    Literally the autopsy report.

    Cause of death is literally the case title: "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
    SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION"
    Yeah - some of our ban-avoiding alt-accounts just can't help themselves.

    I'm VERY curious to see how this jury comes back. I guess they won't start until Monday, at which point they will be sequestered, but they aren't sequestered NOW - which I find very interesting.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    It really seems like people only want evidence that aligns with the outcome they have already predetermined to be true. Give what happened before and after the arrest it looks like a overdose. He was already having spasms before police involvement. When I look at everything I can't really accept that this is open and shut.
    That's YOU. You are looking for any indication that aligns with your already predetermined outcome.

    The rest of us are following the evidence, including the medical examiners report, which you link, showing conclusively Floyd died because a cop was sitting on his throat for 9+ minutes.

  9. #18389
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    snip
    So, they gave you the wrong reason for the ban, big deal, but talking about moderation will get you another infraction. AND that comment was baiting, AND FALSE. Literally every person that posts that bullshit is lying.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Yeah - some of our ban-avoiding alt-accounts just can't help themselves.

    I'm VERY curious to see how this jury comes back. I guess they won't start until Monday, at which point they will be sequestered, but they aren't sequestered NOW - which I find very interesting.

    - - - Updated - - -



    That's YOU. You are looking for any indication that aligns with your already predetermined outcome.

    The rest of us are following the evidence, including the medical examiners report, which you link, showing conclusively Floyd died because a cop was sitting on his throat for 9+ minutes.
    Exactly, on both accounts. Especially your bolded statement.

    I have seen lots of right winger Trump supporters with the whole "back the blue" bullshit in their FB accounts, or Youtube comments saying the same lie that that he died of a drug overdose, even though literally every other expert, INCLUDING the Medical Examiner that did the autopsy, said that he didn't.

    And this pulmonologist, Dr. Tobin, was severely DEVASTATING to their claims.
    Last edited by Rozz; 2021-04-15 at 07:22 PM.

  10. #18390
    It's 100% clear at this point that he wouldn't have died if no knee to the neck.

  11. #18391
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    It's 100% clear at this point that he wouldn't have died if no knee to the neck.
    Even if he had some sort of other medical reaction... the moment when he calls out that he can’t breath, is the moment where not lifting your knee is murder.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  12. #18392
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    28,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That was it. Not "robbed", no "traumatizing" of the clerk.
    And the owner is on record saying he regrets the fact his clerk the cops on Floyd since it resulted in his death.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...cript-released

    He sounds reasonable, and he'd rather work with the people who use these bills (since most aren't even aware the bills are counterfeit.)

    I for one am sick of seeing people drag George Floyd's name through the mud. Like even of these allegations are true, even if he did traumatize the clerk, that STILL DOES NOT justify his death at the hands of the police.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Even if he had some sort of other medical reaction... the moment when he calls out that he can’t breath, is the moment where not lifting your knee is murder.
    DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

    This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

    NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.

  13. #18393
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit... perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating

    “You had your shot you can’t now show objective fact to disprove the fantasy the defence created”
    The time to object to that was when they presented it. Like, literally object in court.

    There's a theory among some prosecutors that you shouldn't object too much because it makes you seem unruly to a jury, and that you're trying to suppress things from them. This ain't it. If the autopsy showed no CO levels, they needed to object at the time to exclude it. Once it's "out there," it's out there.

    Either way, the jury will have copies of the CO levels during the autopsy, so hopefully they can figure out it's bullshit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    And yet we live in a system where certain job titles come with immunities, implicit or explicit.
    I don't think they should have immunities, either. It's not an either/or. Everyone should be equal under the law. That's the whole point of laws.

  14. #18394
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,933
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    The time to object to that was when they presented it. Like, literally object in court.

    There's a theory among some prosecutors that you shouldn't object too much because it makes you seem unruly to a jury, and that you're trying to suppress things from them. This ain't it. If the autopsy showed no CO levels, they needed to object at the time to exclude it. Once it's "out there," it's out there.

    Either way, the jury will have copies of the CO levels during the autopsy, so hopefully they can figure out it's bullshit.
    It's one thing I found interesting in the TV show "Bull", which is mostly nonsense (I'm just a sucker for legal dramas even if they're crap). They pretty regularly will have their lawyer, or the opposition's lawyer will choose to, present evidence that immediately gets objected to and the jury gets told to disregard. And what makes this show almost unique, is that Bull will say, either smarmily or with regret depending, that "no, they won't disregard".

    Jury trial is not based on reason. It's fundamentally rooted in subjective emotion and opinion. If it were objective, you wouldn't need a jury; the facts would get tallied and the facts would give you your verdict. We insert a jury to allow subjective interpretation of those facts, and the application of emotion.

    And that's what happens; you introduce bullshit, and some members of the jury are idiots and don't realize it's bullshit, and they hang the jury even when told to disregard because they think the judge was wrong about that and they're still considering it.

    Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.

  15. #18395
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.
    Now we're getting into questions of intent, which is generally very difficult to prove. Especially when, if I understand correctly, lawyers are obligated to provide the best possible defense for their client. The unfortunate reality is you can never put that cat back in the bag once its out, and as the show/you point out "disregard X" doesn't really cancel out what the jury just heard and will likely have in their brains when discussing a verdict.

  16. #18396
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Now we're getting into questions of intent, which is generally very difficult to prove. Especially when, if I understand correctly, lawyers are obligated to provide the best possible defense for their client. The unfortunate reality is you can never put that cat back in the bag once its out, and as the show/you point out "disregard X" doesn't really cancel out what the jury just heard and will likely have in their brains when discussing a verdict.
    Yeah, I'd pretty much only think a lawyer should face sanction when they bring up something COMPLETELY without basis, where there's a possibility it could be proven.

    If you want to argue that your client could have been elsewhere rather than the crime scene committing the crime, that's valid, as it calls into question how thoroughly the evidence places them there. Here, though, we have two autopsies both mutually confirming that Floyd died from asphyxiation due to pressure on the neck. That's like having video footage of your client committing the crime. If you want to argue that it's a twin he doesn't know he has, or a clone, or someone else in disguise, you should be expected to be able to justify that with actual evidence. If not, you should be sanctioned somehow, because you're wasting the court's time and trying to push an unjust resolution to the trial.

    If we didn't have two autopsies both confirming the same thing, and no autopsies suggesting otherwise, then there's no evidence either way and "maybe it was something else" is reasonable doubt. With the autopsies? Just fuck off, you're just lying.

  17. #18397
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If we didn't have two autopsies both confirming the same thing, and no autopsies suggesting otherwise, then there's no evidence either way and "maybe it was something else" is reasonable doubt. With the autopsies? Just fuck off, you're just lying.
    At the very least it's worth a verbal/written reprimand for the lawyer (no clue if it actually is), seems reasonable. Get enough of those on your "record" and that starts showing intent and bad faith on the part of an attorney.

  18. #18398
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

    This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

    NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.
    It implies you can just strange people with asthma and their death wouldn’t be due to strangling.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  19. #18399
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    It implies you can just strange people with asthma and their death wouldn’t be due to strangling.
    "Your honor, the victim died when their heart stopped. Given the victims history of heat disease and arrhythmia, we can't conclusively say that my client was responsible."

    "Your client put a bullet through the heart of the victim..."

    "Yes your honor, but we can't say conclusively that the bullet killed the victim, and not their underlying heart conditions. They died when their heart stopped, which could have been due to sudden cardiac arrest after being shot, which would indicate that my client did not murder the victim."

  20. #18400
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's one thing I found interesting in the TV show "Bull", which is mostly nonsense (I'm just a sucker for legal dramas even if they're crap). They pretty regularly will have their lawyer, or the opposition's lawyer will choose to, present evidence that immediately gets objected to and the jury gets told to disregard. And what makes this show almost unique, is that Bull will say, either smarmily or with regret depending, that "no, they won't disregard".

    Jury trial is not based on reason. It's fundamentally rooted in subjective emotion and opinion. If it were objective, you wouldn't need a jury; the facts would get tallied and the facts would give you your verdict. We insert a jury to allow subjective interpretation of those facts, and the application of emotion.
    I'm a 6' big brown man with a beard. When I was studying to be a trial lawyer, I took a class in my last year of law school called Trial Practice. It was all about practicing in-courtroom tactics and practices. We were assigned to partner up and practice direct examinations and cross examinations with your partner playing the witness. I partnered with a good friend of mine, who was a 5'1", petite blonde girl named Dawn from Dallas, Texas. The minute I approached her on the stand, our professors were like, "No, don't do that."

    "Why?" I asked. And he said, "You're a big dude, she's a small blonde lady. It'll be seen as intimidating by any jury." And my friend said, "Awww, but he's a giant softie!" To which the professors said something to the effect of: it doesn't matter what I am, it matters how they'll see me. In my career, I've never approached a woman on the stand, for that reason.

    And that's what happens; you introduce bullshit, and some members of the jury are idiots and don't realize it's bullshit, and they hang the jury even when told to disregard because they think the judge was wrong about that and they're still considering it.

    Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.
    U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.

    American jurisprudence supporters suggest the adversarial system offers more rights to defendants (because they literally do get to throw shit at the wall in order to sow reasonable doubt) and thus more protection for defendants, but it's obviously not true. Because in a competition if one side has more resources, they're gonna have a leg up in the competition. When it's a public defender vs. an ADA, the ADA has more resources, and can dictate the competition. When the defense is private, and can throw 12 paralegals at one case and bury the prosecution in paper, they have the leg up in the competition.

    It's obviously broken, and should be changed - but I don't blame a defense attorney for literally playing by the rules set up by the system to get the best possible outcome for their client. The first rule of legal ethics is to be a zealous advocate for your client. The second rule is to not lie or obstruct justice. But then again, maybe I'm biased as a former public defender.
    Last edited by eschatological; 2021-04-15 at 09:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •