How can Derek Chauvin expect a fair trial in Minneapolis?

[TSwizzle]

Er, no. I am only repeating the evidence given by the ER doctor that treated Floyd. This is evidence that the jury has to weigh up.

I guess if you say so, it must be true.

Well you can be forgiven for missing that because it's not something the MSM likes to point out. But your laziness and bias is noted.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dr. Bradford Langenfeld said that commonly indicates the person has had trouble breathing – taking in oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide.

“That means they are not eliminating it [carbon dioxide] through ventilation or breathing,” he told the jury.

Forensic pathologist Dr. Judy Melinek is not associated with the case, but she says she has been closely following the medical evidence.

"Carbon dioxide goes up in the blood when a person has acid buildup," she explained. "You can have an acidosis which is acid buildup from respiratory process – meaning you are not breathing enough and that's why the carbon dioxide is going up,” she said.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news...octor who,oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide.

 

[Gospel]

Apparently Floyd had "exceptionally high" levels of carbon dioxide in his system likely due to the drugs which can also affect the respiratory system.

There you have it folks, both our resident physicians have weighed in. They are in fact so skilled at their profession we can waive the requirement to examine the body themselves.

Er, no. I am only repeating the evidence given by the ER doctor that treated Floyd. This is evidence that the jury has to weigh up.

Evidence? The ER Doctor that treated Floyd theorized (based off his experience) the cause of death and he said it was likely suffocation. You and Derec are making additions (which amounts to personal speculations) to his statements. So yes, you're both conducting yourselves like super duper physicians that don't need access to the body.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Er, no. I am only repeating the evidence given by the ER doctor that treated Floyd. This is evidence that the jury has to weigh up.

Evidence? The ER Doctor that treated Floyd theorized (based off his experience) the cause of death and he said it was likely suffocation. You and Derec are making additions (which amounts to personal speculations) to his statements. So yes, you're both conducting yourselves like super duper physicians that don't need access to the body.

Yes. He quotemined the doctor's words "exceptionally high" and then added in inferences he heard from right-wing sources that he isn't identifying. Those sources are contradicted by the rest of what the doctor said. That sounds a lot like how creationists quote-mine scientists... That's what happens when the point of this thread is to try to prove that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. The other trial thread is better because actual, real quotes and each day of the trial are being documented. These guys are afraid to go there and will only stay under an umbrella of Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial in the first place.

 

[Gun Nut]

I would be defending my use of deadly force against the cop today, had I been there, now that I have seen more footage of the event that included the audio of MANY people crowded around, all yelling at the cop to get off the guy's neck ("he's not moving", "he's not breathing", "you're killing him"... all yelled over and over).
The Asian cop that was controlling the crowd would have been disabled, and the pig on the guys neck would be dead right now. and I would be in jail trying to get out on the justification of deadly force to prevent a murder.
What I probably would not have thought to do at the moment, but what anyone there should have done, is call 911 and scream into the phone, "MULTPLE COPS DOWN / NONRESPONSIVE / AMBULANCE NEEDED at xxxx IMMEDIATELY - CODE 3" and just hang up the phone. That would have put paramedics on scene possible soon enough to stop the murder.

One of the bystanders actually called the cops on the cops.

They should have, and is good they did. If they had lied and said a cop was down, 5 ambulances would have arrived to disrupt the murder within 1 minute.
My thought is that I might not have made that call if I was assured paramedics were on the way. I would certainly have engaged the asian police officer that was controlling the crowd, "strongly". I would have threatened a citizen's arrest on him for obstructing the ability to render aide to a victim of an apparent crime, and I would have been armed (As usual, unless I was heading to or from a bar). I am certain that if the cop performing crowd control was suddenly found prone with a .357 to the back of the head, the officers directly involved in the murder would have had their attention radically redirected and their full attention and cooperation achieved... and I would be in jail hoping for a quick trial and leniency for my intent to render aide without having to employ deadly force, which would have been legally allowed to stop a murder (or kidnapping or rape). But if I stopped the murder then it would be harder to prove deadly force would have been appropriate. Catch 22. Just glad I was NOT there, actually.

 

[Gospel]

Er, no. I am only repeating the evidence given by the ER doctor that treated Floyd. This is evidence that the jury has to weigh up.

Evidence? The ER Doctor that treated Floyd theorized (based off his experience) the cause of death and he said it was likely suffocation. You and Derec are making additions (which amounts to personal speculations) to his statements. So yes, you're both conducting yourselves like super duper physicians that don't need access to the body.

Yes. He quotemined the doctor's words "exceptionally high" and then added in inferences he heard from right-wing sources that he isn't identifying. Those sources are contradicted by the rest of what the doctor said. That sounds a lot like how creationists quote-mine scientists... That's what happens when the point of this thread is to try to prove that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. The other trial thread is better because actual, real quotes and each day of the trial are being documented. These guys are afraid to go there and will only stay under an umbrella of Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial in the first place.

What's funny to me is neither of them seems bright enough to quote mine an actual case critical physician, which would be the medical examiner. They waste their efforts on the dude at the ER whose job it is to try to keep Floyd alive & record the time of death (if one occurs) not determine the cause of death. The ER dude can make an educated guess as to the cause of death but his opinion is not an official one. SMH

 

[Patooka]

Er, no. I am only repeating the evidence given by the ER doctor that treated Floyd. This is evidence that the jury has to weigh up.

I guess if you say so, it must be true.

Well you can be forgiven for missing that because it's not something the MSM likes to point out. But your laziness and bias is noted.

No I'm serious. I believe anything you say because it's obvious you always argue in good faith. Please share more of your enlightenment

 

[J842P]

The E.D. Dr. that called Floyd's death testified today that he believed Floyd to have been asphyxiated.

He could have asphyxiated on the water in his lungs.

Apparently Floyd had "exceptionally high" levels of carbon dioxide in his system likely due to the drugs which can also affect the respiratory system.

Um, no, that is not "likely due to drugs", that is *likely due to having his breathing obstructed*. Which was due, to anyone with eyes, to him being restrained. Which happens to be the same exact conclusion reached by the medical examiners who've performed the autopsy.

 

[Derec]

Um, no, that is not "likely due to drugs", that is *likely due to having his breathing obstructed*.

Fentanyl caused his lungs to fill with liquid. Alveoli filled with liquid cannot participate in gas exchange and this leads to CO₂ buildup.

Which was due, to anyone with eyes, to him being restrained. Which happens to be the same exact conclusion reached by the medical examiners who've performed the autopsy.

It could also be due to his fentanyl abuse and weak heart (a weak heart can cause edemas).

 

[TSwizzle]

Apparently Floyd had "exceptionally high" levels of carbon dioxide in his system likely due to the drugs which can also affect the respiratory system.

Um, no, that is not "likely due to drugs", that is *likely due to having his breathing obstructed*. Which was due, to anyone with eyes, to him being restrained. Which happens to be the same exact conclusion reached by the medical examiners who've performed the autopsy.

Um, ya-ha. The elevated carbon dioxide although not caused by the drugs itself, it is due to the effect the drugs have on the user’s breathing. That is what the ER doctor testified to.

 

[Derec]

You have not established there are credible threats of violence.

Stop playing dumb. It's not a good look for you. Nobody here believes that Minneapolis will not be target of #BLM violence should Chauvin walk. Not even you.

Nor have you established that the jurors who pledged to fair and evaluate the evidence would be influenced by your alleged "threats of violent riots".

How do you expect me to establish that? Human nature suggests that they very likely will be influenced by almost inevitable violence, and that is enough reason to move the trial out of Twin Cities.

You have stated you do not believe Chauvin is guilty of murder.

Excessive force, yes. Murder, no. Floyd was a dead man walking anyway due to his dicky ticker and severe drug abuse.

Your long posting history of denigrating black victims of police violence

Just because I offer a more accurate picture about them than the hagiographies preferred by the mainstream media does not mean I am "denigrating" anybody.

(your posts in this thread about Mr. Floyd are classic examples)

I was merely countering the "he was a gentle giant, everybody loved him" narrative so common when a black thug gets shot by police with some facts about his criminal history that involved armed home invasion robbery.

defending police misconduct against black victims

Wrong. Chauvin did wrong. That does not mean that he is a murderer though.

strongly suggest that the "fair does not mean an outcome you agree with" is not a straw man.

BS. Fair means that the jury is not unduly influenced by the violent riots that happened last Summer and the very likely repeat of those should the jury return a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[Derec]

Not only that, they are able to reach levels of certitude

No. Not certitude. Just reasonable doubt. Or are we forgetting where the burden of proof lies? Or does that not even matter, since this is a show trial anyway?

 

[Derec]

There you have it folks, both our resident physicians have weighed in. They are in fact so skilled at their profession we can waive the requirement to examine the body themselves.

We have the results of the autopsy. Not the part where the ME editorializes about fault, but raw data. Like the very high levels of fentanyl and liquid-filled lungs 2-3 times their normal weight. Liquid filled alveoli cannot effectively exchange gases and so the subject can't breathe.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How do you expect me to establish that? Human nature suggests that they very likely will be influenced by almost inevitable violence, and that is enough reason to move the trial out of Twin Cities.

Do you believe there won’t be violence in the Twin Cities if he is acquitted in another city?

Or just that people who don’t live there would be more willing to acquit because the violence wouldn’t be in their own town?

 

[fromderinside]

The judgement must be made on whether the guy would die walking home or whether the stress of to try breathing while his access to air was constrained caused his death. I'm certainly going to side with the constrained air passage situation being the proximal cause of his death since I'm pretty sure he could have gotten home in his condition with little risk after all he had gotten from home to the store pretty easily.

 

[Derec]

You seem to think that "fair" means flipping a coin so the perp has equal chances of conviction and acquittal.

No, I do not. I never said anything about 50-50 chances.
Even if a case is such that a conviction is 99% likely in a fair trial, that is not an excuse to deny the defendant a fair trial.
If the case against Chauvin is as air-tight as you believe, what is the harm in moving venue, or prohibiting witnesses from wearing #BLM t-shirts or from prohibiting prosecution asking witnesses about how they felt rather than what they saw.

Sorry dude - everyone saw the psychopath cop murder a civilian for no reason except that he enjoyed murdering.

He performed an act that 99 times out of 100 would not have been lethal. Not even prosecution is alleging intent or that pleasure was the motive. That's just your prejudice speaking.
Now, yes, Chauvin did engage in excessive force. So he should get some penalty. But I do not think it is murder. It certainly cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not the drugs and his weak heart that killed him.

If you have a hard time finding someone who doesn't think that happened, it doesn't mean his trial wasn't fair.

If they think that since before the trial, then it is not a fair trial, period. Maybe you could find 12 people in Brainerd who have not been hearing all about this case incessantly for the last nine months, but you sure won't be able to find them in Minneapolis.

But don't worry - the jury is 50% white.

Which is far less than the population of Hennepin county. Statistically very unlikely to have happened by chance, which means this racially tilted jury was selected on purpose.

The statistical chances are very good that one of them will be sufficiently racist that no amount of evidence will result in a murder 1 conviction.

1. You are saying only racism could make somebody vote against conviction rather than careful analysis of evidence and conclusion that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Murder 1 is not even on the menu AFAIK. That would require premeditation, something so out of the left field not even this bloodthirsty prosecution wanted to go with.

The best that the prosecuation can reasonably hope for is murder 3. And that, if it happens, will only be to mitigate the backlash.

And by backlash you mean the violent riots by #BLM and Antifa? You believe #BLMers/Antifas will riot even if Chauvin gets convicted of Murder 3? They are a bunch of hard to please insurgents, aren't they?

 

[Derec]

Yah, like, when you murder someone on fifth avenue in broad daylight on camera, a "fair trial" is not one in which you will be aquitted, a fair trial will be one where they are deciding whether you get "life" or "death".

Especially in a state with no death penalty or even life without parole ("25 to life" is the top sentence in NY).

But none of that matters, right? The demand, just like with Chauvin, is for a show trial and legal niceties are irrelevant.

 

[laughing dog]

Stop playing dumb. It's not a good look for you. Nobody here believes that Minneapolis will not be target of #BLM violence should Chauvin walk. Not even you.

Projection is narcissism, not analysis.

How do you expect me to establish that? Human nature suggests that they very likely will be influenced by almost inevitable violence, and that is enough reason to move the trial out of Twin Cities.

You assume
1) the jurors do not know their own minds when they made their oath,
2) they share your estimate of the probability and degree of violence, and
3) share your fear.

Excessive force, yes. Murder, no. Floyd was a dead man walking anyway due to his dicky ticker and severe drug abuse.

As has been shown to you in this thread, that is irrelevant under Mn law.

Just because I offer a more accurate picture about them than the hagiographies preferred by the mainstream media does not mean I am "denigrating" anybody.

In this thread, you have called him “a black thug”. In the police misconduct thread, you called him a “low-life robber” and “a piece of shit robber”. Those are demeaning and dehumanizing characterizations. I seriously doubt even you really believe your denial.

Those are not accurate descriptions, especially since he had not been charged with robbery since serving his time.

BS. Fair means that the jury is not unduly influenced by the violent riots that happened last Summer and the very likely repeat of those should the jury return a "not guilty" verdict.

You are not fooling anyone. You are simply making a priori excuses for a feared (by you) verdict that you disagree with.

 

[Derec]

To Derec a black person showing an inch of aggression deserves a mile of death

Bullshit! Floyd did not deserve death. I am just not convinced Chauvin caused it. And even if he did, he still deserves a fair trial, just like everybody else.

so he's just concerned that someone who looks like him might get the same treatment.

I do believe people should be treated equally regardless of race. I do not know whether Chauvin would have treated a big white guy the same under equal circumstances. I do not think it is fair to assume he would not have. What I know is that the Floyd would not have received such laudable news coverage, nor would his deaths have inspired months of violent and deadly riots all over the country had he been white.

At least he's aware that guerrilla courts are a thing and can happen to white people too. Whether that court is on the streets or an actual courtroom is mere semantics.

I'd still take the courtroom, all things considered. As they say, better be judged by twelve than carried by six. Even at the danger of facing a show trial.

 

[Derec]

Projection is narcissism, not analysis.

I am not projecting.

1) the jurors do not know their own minds when they made their oath,
2) they share your estimate of the probability and degree of violence, and
3) share your fear.

And you do know that all of these are reasonable assumptions. For example, everybody knows that the violence is extremely likely should Chauvin walk. You are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

As has been shown to you in this thread, that is irrelevant under Mn law.

Cause of death is very much relevant. If the cause of death is irrelevant, why not prosecute you for the murder of Prince. I mean, I understand you had nothing to do with his actual cause of death, but apparently the cause of death is irrelevant in Minnesota...

In this thread, you have called him “a black thug”. In the police misconduct thread, you called him a “low-life robber” and “a piece of shit robber”.

Where is the lie though?

Those are demeaning and dehumanizing characterizations. I seriously doubt even you really believe your denial.

I would say they are accurate statements, designed to counter media hagiographies about "gentle giants" and the like.

Those are not accurate descriptions, especially since he had not been charged with robbery since serving his time.

When I called him a robber, I was referring to the case where he and his buddies burst into an apartment and Floyd pressed a gun to a woman's abdomen. So yes, accurate.

You are not fooling anyone. You are simply making a priori excuses for a feared (by you) verdict that you disagree with.

You are not fooling anyone. We both know that this is the almost certain outcome of a "not guilty" verdict. Similar to LA Riots.
Now, it is very unlikely this will be tested.