George Floyd

FatCat

Well-known member
More damming evidence yesterday - seems to be stacking up now against Chauvin in terms of his misuse of force. He needs to hope the next couple of days looking at the medical evidence surrounding the cause of death can level things up a bit.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
More damming evidence yesterday - seems to be stacking up now against Chauvin in terms of his misuse of force. He needs to hope the next couple of days looking at the medical evidence surrounding the cause of death can level things up a bit.
Shush fc I have to catch up. I was working late last night.

Not seen the evidence from yesterday yet and nor wishing to put a dampener on proceedings but the defence haven't started yet. You are right though I think the defences case will be built around the medical evidence.

They will trot out a drug dealer or two to hammer home that George Floyd has drug problems and hope the medical evidence convinces the jury that Floyd may have died from an overdose. Remember the defence don't have to prove that George Floyd died of an overdose but the prosecution have to prove that he didn't,or at the very least chocking him for 9 minutes exacerbated the problem.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Shush fc I have to catch up. I was working late last night.

Not seen the evidence from yesterday yet and nor wishing to put a dampener on proceedings but the defence haven't started yet. You are right though I think the defences case will be built around the medical evidence.

They will trot out a drug dealer or two to hammer home that George Floyd has drug problems and hope the medical evidence convinces the jury that Floyd may have died from an overdose. Remember the defence don't have to prove that George Floyd died of an overdose but the prosecution have to prove that he didn't,or at the very least chocking him for 9 minutes exacerbated the problem.
But that wouldn't be homicide, as stated in post mortems. Proven.
 

Heam44

Well-known member
If a copper had done that to one of my kids he'd be seriously ill and I'd be in jail.

Didn't been a police officer once mean you were there to protect your local community? Nowadays it's seems like they are all on power trips, no wonder they don't get the respect they ask for.
Yeah because the incident involving George Floyd is exactly what happens in every incident involving the police, in both America and USA.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
But that wouldn't be homicide, as stated in post mortems. Proven.
Bear that's not the case. Accidental death, still homicide, gets Cauvin acquited. I think he will be found guilty of manslaughter 3,but its not a given yet.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
But not anything to do with drugs overdose.
If the drugs were the primary contributing factor the defence will argue in closing that Cauvin couldn't have known. Bare in mind that the jury can only convict on one of the 2,or is it 3 crimes before them. I can't remember if murder 3 was included in the end.

Had Floyd been drug free would he have died? Will be the question the defence will ask.

Nelson is an expensive lawyer and nobodies fool. He knows he only has an outside chance of an acquittal but he will put on a show to the bitter end.

It will be interesting to compare the 2 medical experts though we will only see 1 in the prosecutions case.
 

bear66

Well-known member
If the drugs were the primary contributing factor the defence will argue in closing that Cauvin couldn't have known. Bare in mind that the jury can only convict on one of the 2,or is it 3 crimes before them. I can't remember if murder 3 was included in the end.

Had Floyd been drug free would he have died? Will be the question the defence will ask.

Nelson is an expensive lawyer and nobodies fool. He knows he only has an outside chance of an acquittal but he will put on a show to the bitter end.

It will be interesting to compare the 2 medical experts though we will only see 1 in the prosecutions case.
The post mortems say orherwise
 

Laughing

Well-known member
The post mortems say orherwise
There are 2, apparently conflicting post mortems.

Interestingly enough, if I recall opening arguments correctly, the prosecution are using a consultant, not the ME, to say that George Floyd died of aspyxiation. The defence, and again if I remember this correctly, are using the ME to "prove" that George Floyd died of a pre-existing heart issue.

It's relevant because generally the ME would be used by the prosecution and the defence are left with a paid talking head to refute the ME.

I haven't seen either bit of evidence, obviously so I am going from the opening statements. One may be very much more believable than the other.
 

bear66

Well-known member
There are 2, apparently conflicting post mortems.

Interestingly enough, if I recall opening arguments correctly, the prosecution are using a consultant, not the ME, to say that George Floyd died of aspyxiation. The defence, and again if I remember this correctly, are using the ME to "prove" that George Floyd died of a pre-existing heart issue.

It's relevant because generally the ME would be used by the prosecution and the defence are left with a paid talking head to refute the ME.

I haven't seen either bit of evidence, obviously so I am going from the opening statements. One may be very much more believable than the other.
Not conflicting in terms of homicide but cause of death. One says heart failure which is a cop out as that is the cause of every death!
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Not conflicting in terms of homicide but cause of death. One says heart failure which is a cop out as that is the cause of every death!
I don't know bear, it's one area I know very little about. I can only assume the defence either disagree with that assessment or they think they can muddy the waters enough to confuse the jury. They may also, I suppose, be going through the motions and hoping for manslaughter 3 as the verdict and not really expecting an acquittal on all counts.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
Hooping for those wondering not to be confused with hula hooping. Another sneaky move by the defence fella:

We’ve all done it. Or at least we know someone who has. Hooping (taking your ecstasy, crystal, or whatever up the ass) can also do damage to the tissues around your ass-so if sex is part of what happens when you get high and you hoop your dope, keep in mind the inflammation associated with this damage can increase your risk of HIV (and other STIs) transmission.
 

Liamo

Well-known member
There are 2, apparently conflicting post mortems.

Interestingly enough, if I recall opening arguments correctly, the prosecution are using a consultant, not the ME, to say that George Floyd died of aspyxiation. The defence, and again if I remember this correctly, are using the ME to "prove" that George Floyd died of a pre-existing heart issue.

It's relevant because generally the ME would be used by the prosecution and the defence are left with a paid talking head to refute the ME.

I haven't seen either bit of evidence, obviously so I am going from the opening statements. One may be very much more believable than the other.
I mentioned this before, but the ME's report gave the cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest [complicated by] law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

As @bear66 says, this is essentially a cop out (pun intended, bear?) because all deaths ultimately, are from cardiopulmonary arrest - it simply means the heart stopped beating.

However it's also noteworthy that the only things it mentions other than cardiopulmonary arrest (which again, is not a real cause of death) are the actions of the police officers.

In fact, in most US states a doctor is not even allowed to put cardiopulmonary arrest as cause of death on a death certificate, precisely because it is so non-probative.

This prohibition is mentioned in the video below where a pulmonary and emergency medicine specialist discusses the George Floyd case. It's a bit long, so if you want to watch only the section looking at the autopsy findings you can skip to around 15m 10s.

The part about cardiopulmonary arrest not being acceptable as a cause of death is at 1m45s, so I'd also watch the first two minutes or so, just to see that.

 
Last edited:

Laughing

Well-known member
I mentioned this before, but the ME's report gave the cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest [complicated by] law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

As @bear66 says, this is essentially a cop out (pun intended, bear?) because all deaths ultimately, are from cardiopulmonary arrest - it simply means the heart stopped beating.

However it's also noteworthy that the only things it mentions other than cardiopulmonary arrest (which again, is not a real cause of death) are the actions of the police officers.

In fact, in most US states a doctor is not even allowed to put cardiopulmonary arrest as cause of death on a death certificate, precisely because it is so non-probative.

This prohibition is mentioned in the video below where a pulmonary and emergency medicine specialist discusses the George Floyd case. It's a bit long, so if you want to watch only the section looking at the autopsy findings you can skip to around 15m 10s.

The part about cardiopulmonary arrest not being acceptable as a cause of death is at 1m45s, so I'd also watch the first two minutes or so, just to see that.

Biology is something I don't know much about so I can only use very basic understanding here and what Nelson said in opening statement. My basic understanding of biology would suggest that if, for example, you are shot in the head, that would be the primary cause of death. If you have a heart attack that would be the primary cause of death. What Nelson is going to try to prove, I believe, is that. George Floyd died due to a weak heart caused primarily through drug abuse, not being knelt on. I don't know if he can prove that, but so far all cross has concentrated on 2 factors. Whether its OK to use a knee restraint and George Floyd was a drug addict. He has chipped away with these two issues all through the prosecutions case.

Will it be enough? I don't think so. It may be, as I said above, the defence would be happy with manslaughter 3 and are trying to avoid murder 2. If they are going to do that, you may as well pitch your defence at an acquittal and hope to be convicted of the lesser offence. Given that Nelson had made a deal with the da for manslaughter which was rescinded by the attorney General, that manslaughter is what they are aiming for. If he gets 25 years for that most of us would think that justice had been served. The original deal only stipulated a sentence over 10 years, which most of us would think is a long way from justice.

I am speculating here but I think that is the defence strategy given the cross. We will know more once Nelson starts his defence.

At the minute it looks like a slam drunk, but cases often do because all we have heard is the prosecution evidence. The defence are limited in cross to only the subjects touched upon during direct examination.

That turns the whole thing in to a game between defence and prosecution and the truth can get lost.

It's a combative system and it stinks.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Biology is something I don't know much about so I can only use very basic understanding here and what Nelson said in opening statement. My basic understanding of biology would suggest that if, for example, you are shot in the head, that would be the primary cause of death. If you have a heart attack that would be the primary cause of death. What Nelson is going to try to prove, I believe, is that. George Floyd died due to a weak heart caused primarily through drug abuse, not being knelt on. I don't know if he can prove that, but so far all cross has concentrated on 2 factors. Whether its OK to use a knee restraint and George Floyd was a drug addict. He has chipped away with these two issues all through the prosecutions case.

Will it be enough? I don't think so. It may be, as I said above, the defence would be happy with manslaughter 3 and are trying to avoid murder 2. If they are going to do that, you may as well pitch your defence at an acquittal and hope to be convicted of the lesser offence. Given that Nelson had made a deal with the da for manslaughter which was rescinded by the attorney General, that manslaughter is what they are aiming for. If he gets 25 years for that most of us would think that justice had been served. The original deal only stipulated a sentence over 10 years, which most of us would think is a long way from justice.

I am speculating here but I think that is the defence strategy given the cross. We will know more once Nelson starts his defence.

At the minute it looks like a slam drunk, but cases often do because all we have heard is the prosecution evidence. The defence are limited in cross to only the subjects touched upon during direct examination.

That turns the whole thing in to a game between defence and prosecution and the truth can get lost.

It's a combative system and it stinks.
If you get shot in the head, you're alive till your heart stops. Why the heart stops is a primary cause of death but the PM didn't give much away on that.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
If you get shot in the head, you're alive till your heart stops. Why the heart stops is a primary cause of death but the PM didn't give much away on that.
Dunno about that from a legal perspective Bear. You are right, again legally, that death is announced when both respirtaion and heart stops, not brain function. I don't know how any of that is interpreted by a coroner though in terms of evidential rules and determining cause of death nor how it will be interepreted, or presented to the jury when the defence get their go.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Dunno about that from a legal perspective Bear. You are right, again legally, that death is announced when both respirtaion and heart stops, not brain function. I don't know how any of that is interpreted by a coroner though in terms of evidential rules and determining cause of death nor how it will be interepreted, or presented to the jury when the defence get their go.
Legality is immaterial! Having been mauled by a QC as an expert witness in a civil suit, the defence will have a field day, but hopefully the jury see through it. There were three high court judges in the case I was testifying in, and they saw through QC jiggery-pokery.
 
Top
X