Did the Chauvin trial prosecutors just torpedo their entire case

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

I don't agree with that. I've seen plenty of white suspects get treated with some pretty rough handling.

I think the prosecution, and the SJW's want you to think this is a black/white thing, because it sells advertisements for the MSM and sensationalism, but that's NOT what this is.

There's actually a real case here, despite what anyone might say.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

oh I agree and said in a previous post that drug addicts have HUGE tolerances so I wonder what metric the 'lethal does of fentanyl' came from.


police only know what they are presented with when they show up and how the person deals with them, and hind sight is 20/20

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
No rational and honest person can say that "beyond any reasonable doubt" the officers action killed him rather than all of the drugs he swallowed.

How much were all the drugs he swallowed?

The autopsy doesn't show a huge amount in his blood stream so why would a rational and honest person say that was what killed him?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

I don't agree with that. I've seen plenty of white suspects get treated with some pretty rough handling.

I think the prosecution, and the SJW's want you to think this is a black/white thing, because it sells advertisements for the MSM and sensationalism, but that's NOT what this is.

There's actually a real case here, despite what anyone might say.

Please explain to me how someone can rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the police action killed him not the drugs..

a reply to: daskakik

Youre misinformed.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

So, if someone "pulls the plug" on someone who is only alive because of life support there is no problem?

Please explain to me how someone can rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the police action killed him not the drugs..

Thus, a jury decision.

originally posted by: Phage

So, if someone "pulls the plug" on someone who is only alive because of life support there is no problem?

No... why do you ask?

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

No... why do you ask?

The person was dying anyway. If the person had taken no action they would have died eventually.

Please explain to me how someone can rationally conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the police action killed him not the drugs..

Thus, a jury decision. One can be guilty of contributing to a death.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777
The autopsy was posted here and I replied with the OD levels in the post below that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Juries are told the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.. jurors are not supppsed to just go with their best guess.. if they have any reasonable doubt they shoild be voting not guilty..

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

One can be guilty of contributing to a death.

originally posted by: Phage

The person was dying anyway. If the person had taken no action they would have died eventually.

Everyone dies eventually. People on life support recover and lead long lives afterwards all the time.

The argument isnt "he would have died anyway so not guilty" its "he was full of drugs, had heart problems and he was in an extremely stressful situation thanks to his own criminal behavior.. considering everythig its impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the knee is what killed him."

a reply to: Phage

Sure.. but he is being charged with inentionally killing him (ie murder) not "contributing to someones death."

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

There are several charges on the table, I think.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

There are several charges on the table, I think.

According to www.huffpost.com... the charges are...

Chauvin, 45, is charged with second- and third-degree murder as well as second-degree manslaughter in Floyd’s death. He has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Actually, here's the full criminal complaint.

int.nyt.com...=1

Count I:
Charge: Murder - 3rd Degree - Perpetrating Eminently Dangerous Act and Evincing Depraved Mind

Count II:
Charge: Manslaughter - 2nd Degree - Culpable Negligence Creating Unreasonable Risk

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: vonclod

I think Floyd was a criminal and a drug addict and was more than likely in the throws of an overdose when to police made contact with him and when he was fighting/resisting the police he slipped into unconsciousness and stopped breathing, and that alone would have killed him but the knee on the neck for 9 mins even on a healthy person is uncalled for.

Floyd most likely would have passed away from an OD.

the police just happened to add another lethal condition onto Floyd guaranteeing him to die.


the bottom line is if Floyd wasn't a criminal he wouldn't have been restrained by police and may he might have lived if he wasn't breaking the law... nobody wins in this situation because no one will be happy with the outcome

I guess you never listened to any of the testimony from Chauvins supervisor, said he did not follow protocol, which was to get off his f'ing neck, when he was cuffed and on the ground, another supervisor, or seargent said very clearly, Floyd should of been rolled onto his side when it was apparent he was in medical distress..that means get off his neck..so..what now?

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Please explain to me how someone can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the exact opposite is not true.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Please explain to me how someone can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the exact opposite is not true.

Once again you show a terrifying ignorance of due process and how our legal system is supposed to operate.. we presume innocence and its the accusers obligation to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.. that is also hiw any decent individual approaches such things..

This nation is so dumbed down its already lost im aftaid.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

No, I'm pretty confident in my comprehensive understanding of the legal system and how it works. I would opine that it is you who is lacking in understanding. One of the arguments the prosecution will use is exactly this argument. They will ask the jury to be certain they can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was drugs and not Chauvin which killed Floyd. If the jury is unable to do this then what is the alternative? This is how a trial works in real life.

But seeing as how you're being rather cavalier in your posts, I would argue it is you who is showing a "terrifying ignorance" of the law and due process.

Furthermore, on trial here is not the matter of whether Floyd would have died. Of course he would have died at some point, everyone does. Whether this was 2 hours later, or 6 years later is immaterial to the case. At issue is did Floyd die on the street that day under Chauvin's knee, and if Chauvin's knee hadn't been there would the result have been the same? In other words, was Chauvin the proximate cause of Floyd's death.

This is what the jury must decide

In fact, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to hear almost those exact same words in the prosecution's closing arguments.