Riots in Minneapolis

my problem with his superiors is that they did not move him to the property desk or identification years before. He had a history of using more force than other cops did and there are a few of those on any force. After a bite or two they usually get moved to where they can't hurt anybody or encouraged to seek more suitable employment.

Cop work is very stressful, hence all the divorces and alcohol problems. Chauvin could have used some help way back and didn't get it. Now he is paying for his own sins and those of the butt shiners who get promoted.

In the meantime part of a very nice town gets looted and the rest may go up depending on what those poor people on the jury do.

Aint life grand?
 
my problem with his superiors is that they did not move him to the property desk or identification years before. He had a history of using more force than other cops did and there are a few of those on any force. After a bite or two they usually get moved to where they can't hurt anybody or encouraged to seek more suitable employment.

Cop work is very stressful, hence all the divorces and alcohol problems. Chauvin could have used some help way back and didn't get it. Now he is paying for his own sins and those of the butt shiners who get promoted.

In the meantime part of a very nice town gets looted and the rest may go up depending on what those poor people on the jury do.

Aint life grand?
This is why a conviction of manslaughter would not be out of line even if Chauvin may be technically innocent.
 
I saw the testimony of the medical examiner who did the autopsy report. While defense counsel was able to score some points on the drugs and Floyd’s heart problems, IMHO it didn’t go as well for the defense as they needed it to. As of now, it looks like the State has done enough to establish Chauvin’s actions as a contributing proximate cause of Floyd’s death. Whether or not defense can paint enough reasonable doubt to sway the jury on causation is still in question. At this point: Murder—nope. Manslaughter—probably. But it ain’t over yet, and we’ll see who all defense counsel calls. One juror could hang the jury.

Prosecution is up by a touchdown on the Manslaughter count, but defense will soon have the ball.
 
I saw the testimony of the medical examiner who did the autopsy report. While defense counsel was able to score some points on the drugs and Floyd’s heart problems, IMHO it didn’t go as well for the defense as they needed it to. As of now, it looks like the State has done enough to establish Chauvin’s actions as a contributing proximate cause of Floyd’s death. Whether or not defense can paint enough reasonable doubt to sway the jury on causation is still in question. At this point: Murder—nope. Manslaughter—probably. But it ain’t over yet, and we’ll see who all defense counsel calls. One juror could hang the jury.

Prosecution is up by a touchdown on the Manslaughter count, but defense will soon have the ball.
I’m not going to pretend to know either way but I’ve heard some attorneys less than impressed with some of the defense cross examinations. But, hey, I’m at Hornfans. I’m an expert. Ole boy is a doofus and peeing it down his leg.
 
Those “superiors” who are turning on him trained him, supervised him and were aware of his history. They should be culpable too. My opinion is they are just protecting themselves.

No way this trial should not have been a change of venue.
 
I saw the testimony of the medical examiner who did the autopsy report. While defense counsel was able to score some points on the drugs and Floyd’s heart problems, IMHO it didn’t go as well for the defense as they needed it to. As of now, it looks like the State has done enough to establish Chauvin’s actions as a contributing proximate cause of Floyd’s death. Whether or not defense can paint enough reasonable doubt to sway the jury on causation is still in question. At this point: Murder—nope. Manslaughter—probably. But it ain’t over yet, and we’ll see who all defense counsel calls. One juror could hang the jury.

Prosecution is up by a touchdown on the Manslaughter count, but defense will soon have the ball.

I would give a somewhat more favorable review of the defense. First, if this case wasn't politically charged, the murder charge probably wouldn't even be on the menu. Second, the defense was able to elicit testimony and evidence that the knee was more on the shoulder blade than on the neck, that the presence of drugs in his system could also be a significant cause of asphyxiation, and that Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe before he was physically restrained.

I'm not saying that they disproved the prosecution's entire case. However, considering that they got all that into evidence through prosecution witnesses (meaning before they even put on their own case in chief), that's pretty promising. That's a lot for them to work with when they're arguing the causation point, which could defeat both the murder and the manslaughter charges.

I would say the prosecution is still ahead but by a field goal - better than by a safety but not by a touchdown.

I’m not going to pretend to know either way but I’ve heard some attorneys less than impressed with some of the defense cross examinations.

My guess is that these attorneys either are not courtroom lawyers or they are letting political bias or social pressure drive their opinions. I'm not saying Chauvin's people are Clarence Darrow starter kits, but they're doing a respectable job in light of what evidence and admissions they've gotten from the prosecution's witnesses. Frankly, I think the lawyers on both sides are doing reasonably well with what they have to work with.

Am I predicting an acquittal? No, because jurors understandably don't want their family members assaulted or their houses burned down.
 
Second, the defense was able to elicit testimony and evidence that the knee was more on the shoulder blade than on the neck, that the presence of drugs in his system could also be a significant cause of asphyxiation

Are we watching the same trial?

The medical examiner specifically said that without Chauvin's intervention, Floyd would most likely still be alive. That's a lot different than stating that either the drugs or the knee on the back/neck could have killed him.

Here's the medical examiner quote:

Under questioning from Jerry W. Blackwell, Dr. Baker acknowledged that the “heart disease, fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use” that he had listed as contributing factors were not “direct causes” of Mr. Floyd’s death.

“I would still classify it as a homicide today,” he said.
 
Are we watching the same trial?

The medical examiner specifically said that without Chauvin's intervention, Floyd would most likely still be alive. That's a lot different than stating that either the drugs or the knee on the back/neck could have killed him.

Most likely is ALL the language needed for the reasonable doubt. This is NOT civil trial, where preponderance carries the water and the day.

You conveniently forget that, in addition to not sponsoring, that the defense has no burden to prove that Chauvin didn't commit murder or even manslaughter. The ONLY party with a burden to prove anything is the State. And the State is not doing well at removing reasonable doubt from that courtroom...
 
Are we watching the same trial?

The medical examiner specifically said that without Chauvin's intervention, Floyd would most likely still be alive. That's a lot different than stating that either the drugs or the knee on the back/neck could have killed him.

Here's the medical examiner quote:

You do know that one statement isn't the only piece of evidence that has been admitted in the case, right?
 
I wonder if the defense will have any medical experts of their own to counter Baker. It's pretty damn irresponsible of Baker to make the assumption that Floyd would be alive without Chauvin with the Fentanyl level in his body and the difficulty he had breathing before the altercation even started.
 
You do know that one statement isn't the only piece of evidence that has been admitted in the case, right?

All of the evidence so far presented makes Chauvin look bad. Obviously the defense will have their own experts to counter, but I suspect that none of them will be as impressive as what the prosecutors have shown so far.
 
The only certainty is that Minneapolis burns either way. The Leftist will burn the town down in celebration if he’s convicted and they’ll burn it down if the decision is anything less than a murder. Good thing Minneapolis cut back on the police force.
 
The only certainty is that Minneapolis burns either way. The Leftist will burn the town down in celebration if he’s convicted and they’ll burn it down if the decision is anything less than a murder. Good thing Minneapolis cut back on the police force.
I suspect it will a lot more than just Minneapolis.
 
All of the evidence so far presented makes Chauvin look bad. Obviously the defense will have their own experts to counter, but I suspect that none of them will be as impressive as what the prosecutors have shown so far.

Every piece of evidence I offered in court made my opponent look bad, and yet I still sometimes lost. The reason why is that sometimes the defense is able to poke holes in the usual, conclusory statements like the one offered by the medical examiner. They sometimes did it by getting the witness to equivocate or getting another witness of mine to contradict or show less certainty. Remember, Chauvin doesn't have to prove it disprove anything. He just has to foster a reasonable doubt.
 
Every piece of evidence I offered in court made my opponent look bad, and yet I still sometimes lost. The reason why is that sometimes the defense is able to poke holes in the usual, conclusory statements like the one offered by the medical examiner. They sometimes did it by getting the witness to equivocate or getting another witness of mine to contradict or show less certainty. Remember, Chauvin doesn't have to prove it disprove anything. He just has to foster a reasonable doubt.

Sure, the defense tried to get the medical examiner to say that Floyd could have died from the fentanyl overdose but the medical examiner and the other medical experts have already shot that down.

That's the key issue in this case -- if the defense can raise reasonable doubt that the drugs killed Floyd, they will win. But so far the medical experts have shot that theory down completely.

The defense needs to back off the fentanyl theory because it's not going to help them. It's pretty easy for the plaintiff medical experts to disprove that theory. Floyd's agitation does not fit at all with fentanyl overdose. If the defense continues to push that theory instead of the multi-drug interactions along with heart disease, they will lose, and should lose, this case.

This is going to be a war between medical doctors on both sides -- everything else besides that is smoke-filled coffeehouse crap
 
Yeah, pushing the fact that Floyd's Fentanyl limit was several times the lethal limit and experiencing breathing difficulties due to it is so stupid. LOL!
 
Yeah, pushing the fact that Floyd's Fentanyl limit was several times the lethal limit and experiencing breathing difficulties due to it is so stupid. LOL!

What's the lethal limit for fentanyl?

You can't answer that question until you know which person you're talkng about.

The lethal level of fentanyl for myself is much, much lower than it was for somebody like Floyd.

Any competent medical expert would have told the defense lawyers that, which makes me wonder why the lawyers didn't listen to their own experts.
 
I wonder if the defense will have any medical experts of their own to counter Baker. It's pretty damn irresponsible of Baker to make the assumption that Floyd would be alive without Chauvin with the Fentanyl level in his body and the difficulty he had breathing before the altercation even started.

If you're doing to make that claim against Baker, then you also have to make that claim against any defense expert who goes on the stand and says definitely the fentanyl killed George Floyd. Medical science does not allow anyone to make that kind of definitive statement.
 
The only thing that matters in this case is the question of whether Chauvins knee literally killed Floyd and if he intended for that to be the outcome. I dont see how you can prove intent in this case. Its already been shown that the environment that day was hostile, the suspect was hostile until he went unconscious, and Chauvin did use a form of restraint that police have used for a long time.

Knowing how Floyd was screaming and babbling long before he was put on the ground, AT HIS OWN REQUEST, I can't go into the mind of Chauvin with any certainty and say he definitively MURDERED Floyd.

These witnesses aren't stupid. They know the ramifications. They know they are on national TV. They know about the months of rioting and burning that happened. Honestly this trial shouldn't be on TV. Everyone is biased.
 
What's the lethal limit for fentanyl?

You can't answer that question until you know which person you're talkng about.

The lethal level of fentanyl for myself is much, much lower than it was for somebody like Floyd.

Any competent medical expert would have told the defense lawyers that, which makes me wonder why the lawyers didn't listen to their own experts.

It depends on several factors but Floyd did cross the official threshold by several factors. However, having severe breathing problems is a sure sign of an opioid overdose. The fact that he's an addict and relying on tolerance is dangerous. Some people develop little tolerance and some develop lot of tolerance to a drug.

On top of the large amount of fentanyl he had meth along with it (which probably caused the agitation). He had a heart issue along with recovering from Covid. For a doctor to ignore all of this and call it a homicide is irresponsible. I hope the defense brings better doctors.
 
It depends on several factors but Floyd did cross the official threshold by several factors. However, having severe breathing problems is a sure sign of an opioid overdose. The fact that he's an addict and relying on tolerance is dangerous. Some people develop little tolerance and some develop lot of tolerance to a drug.

On top of the large amount of fentanyl he had meth along with it (which probably caused the agitation). He had a heart issue along with recovering from Covid. For a doctor to ignore all of this and call it a homicide is irresponsible. I hope the defense brings better doctors.

Agreed its irresponsible for the doctors to simply say homicide and ignore the cocktail of drugs in his system. They don't want their homes torched and their lives doxxed.
 
I have a feeling this is what is going on.

No one in their right mind can say this doesn't play a role if they haven't been under a rock for the last 2 years. I think its fair to say Chauvins knee contributed to the factors that ultimately led to Floyd's death, but I can't see how it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it was only his knee and that he knew what he was doing in order to kill Floyd on that pavement, yet this is what the prosecution is saying.

Imagine if Floyd had just let them put him in the Fing squad car instead of screaming to be put on the ground.... yeah Chauvin intended to murder him.... right... Common sense people. Do some of you have it?
 
It depends on several factors but Floyd did cross the official threshold by several factors. However, having severe breathing problems is a sure sign of an opioid overdose. The fact that he's an addict and relying on tolerance is dangerous. Some people develop little tolerance and some develop lot of tolerance to a drug.

On top of the large amount of fentanyl he had meth along with it (which probably caused the agitation). He had a heart issue along with recovering from Covid. For a doctor to ignore all of this and call it a homicide is irresponsible. I hope the defense brings better doctors.

People with fentanyl/narcotic overdoses don't hyperventilate and have rapid breathing like Floyd. They slow down their respirations and they aren't awake enough to complain about not being able to breathe.

Don't any of you guys know what a narcotic overdose looks like? Hint -- it's nothing like George Floyd.

Here's a good example with video of 3 different people who overdosed on fentanyl --
 
People with fentanyl/narcotic overdoses don't hyperventilate and have rapid breathing like Floyd. They slow down their respirations and they aren't awake enough to complain about not being able to breathe.

Don't any of you guys know what a narcotic overdose looks like? Hint -- it's nothing like George Floyd.

Here's a good example with video of 3 different people who overdosed on fentanyl --


If he had only fentanyl in his system you would be right. You're also looking at the actions of meth mixed along with a myriad of health problems.
 
Last edited:
To me it looks like Floyd was a dead man walking. Chauvin may have made him die sooner but he was on borrowed time. He was abusing drugs and taking counterfeit fentanyl opiates, meth, and cocaine by the handful. Based on the videos of his arrests from 2020 and 2019 he appears to have an anxiety disorder and was hospitalized in the 2019 arrest for extremely high blood pressure. In 2020 he was hospitalized for an OD 2 months before he died. He was also complaining about not being able to breath when first confronted by the police and resisted arrest.
 
Last edited:
Sure, the defense tried to get the medical examiner to say that Floyd could have died from the fentanyl overdose but the medical examiner and the other medical experts have already shot that down.

That's the key issue in this case -- if the defense can raise reasonable doubt that the drugs killed Floyd, they will win. But so far the medical experts have shot that theory down completely.

The defense needs to back off the fentanyl theory because it's not going to help them. It's pretty easy for the plaintiff medical experts to disprove that theory. Floyd's agitation does not fit at all with fentanyl overdose. If the defense continues to push that theory instead of the multi-drug interactions along with heart disease, they will lose, and should lose, this case.

This is going to be a war between medical doctors on both sides -- everything else besides that is smoke-filled coffeehouse crap

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information on the case? Are you watching clips on the news, reading articles, or watching the whole thing on TV? By the way, I won't judge you if you aren't watching the whole thing. I'm definitely not.
 
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information on the case? Are you watching clips on the news, reading articles, or watching the whole thing on TV? By the way, I won't judge you if you aren't watching the whole thing. I'm definitely not.
Beto News Network
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top