How can Derek Chauvin expect a fair trial in Minneapolis?

[Rhea]

The complaint is filed by the prosecution.

Using preliminary findings from the County ME

The private autopsy is irrelevant to the criminal case.

Because the final findings of the County ME support them completely, also calling it a homocide brought on by neck compression.


The readers of this thread will note that Trausti is trying very hard to make the conclusion of the cause of death ignore the County coronor’s final report, and instead rely solely on a phrase in the preliminary separated from its qualifying clause. It is easy to see why Trausti would want to discard and hide the medical examiner’s words and conclusion - because they make it clear that Floyd’s death was not his own fault, but the fault of the police action (and subsequent lack of action).

We don’t know why Trausti is so invested in using faulty data to maintain the claim that the police officer did nothing wrong, but we can clearly see that for whatever reason, he is heavily invested in ignoring, discounting and deleting the actual evidence of the ME’s final report and the qualifying clause in the preliminary report. He also seeks to disqualify the family examiner’s report, even though it agrees with the County report.

It is an interesting question why someone like Trausti would spend so much time trying to pretend that the only evidence is the preliminary report, with the damning statement stripped from it. It seems to be the only way one could blame the victim for the crime and absolve the officer. But obviously it relies on deceit and obfuscation to make this case. It will be further interesting to see if Trausti and any other posters will continue to pretend that the final County Coroner’s report does not exist, and continue to pretend that the preliminary report does not clearly say as referenced in that criminla complaint, that

“The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police , his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”

We can watch and see whether he will again engage in this conversation by pointing once again to “the criminal complaint” which he has edited to change its meaning, andd which ignores subsequent final reports.

 

[TSwizzle]

It will be further interesting to see if Trausti and any other posters will continue to pretend that the final County Coroner’s report does not exist, and continue to pretend that the preliminary report does not clearly say as referenced in that criminla complaint, that

“The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police , his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”

I would say that yes, the reports say that Chauvin's actions were a contributing factor in Floyd's death but it was not the sole cause of death. And to me, that makes a murder conviction difficult. I honestly would have a hard time judging him guilty of murder.

 

[Rhea]

It will be further interesting to see if Trausti and any other posters will continue to pretend that the final County Coroner’s report does not exist, and continue to pretend that the preliminary report does not clearly say as referenced in that criminla complaint, that

“The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police , his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”

I would say that yes, the reports say that Chauvin's actions were a contributing factor in Floyd's death but it was not the sole cause of death. And to me, that makes a murder conviction difficult. I honestly would have a hard time judging him guilty of murder.

Aren’t they establishing, though, that without that contributing factor, death would not have occured?
Compare to the murder sentence of a person who was driving a getaway car - people have no trouble locking them up for murder when they didn’t even touch the weapon or the victim.

 

[TSwizzle]

I would say that yes, the reports say that Chauvin's actions were a contributing factor in Floyd's death but it was not the sole cause of death. And to me, that makes a murder conviction difficult. I honestly would have a hard time judging him guilty of murder.

Aren’t they establishing, though, that without that contributing factor, death would not have occured?{snip}

But you still have to consider all the other contributing factors and intent. So if Floyd hadn't been drugged up, he would have been a victim of police brutality but still alive.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Many people's breathing is affected by factors...time of day, stress, exertion, humidity, temperature, sitting or laying, breathing through nose or mouth. I can easily imagine myself gasping for air, saying "I can't breathe" under those or different conditions. I hope people would consider me to be a human being and seek medical assistance as well as apply basic medical training under such circumstances. Instead, in this case, we observe the opposite.

 

[Derec]

Then you have no reason to be upset. We don't know the probability of acquittal here. I don't; you don't. Period.

On the contrary. Whether a trial is fair can be discussed without knowing the probability of acquittal.

Do you honestly not see the preconceived bias you bring to this by using such a hysterical, well-poisoning hyperbole bomb to describe the jury pool? What if, instead, one were to see the jury pool as "an impartial group representative of (and pulled from) the very community in which the offense being tried occurred?" That's not as provocative, granted, but it's a lot more accurate.

I disagree that it is more accurate, or that legitimate concerns about jury pool being poisoned by the threat of violent riots is in any way "hysterical".

You also kinda tell on yourself with your characterization of "should they dare vote to acquit Chauvin." You give the jury absolutely zero benefit of the doubt for carefully weighing the evidence presented to them and delivering a verdict based solely on that.

I do not. The jury system is very flawed at best, which is why most developed countries moved away from it either wholly or in part.
In this case you have the months long violent and deadly riots from last Summer and the high probability that those riots will happen again should they vote "the wrong way".

In fact, they may very well "dare" to acquit Chauvin. They may very well "dare" to convict him.

Not much "dare" in voting the way violent extremists currently occupying the area around where George Floyd died want you to vote.

You act as if it's a foregone conclusion that Chauvin should be acquitted (and I think most of us get why that is) but that only by some miraculous extra-ordinary jury effort, in which they essentially "go against their instincts," could this result in acquittal. That simply isn't true.

I am not. But an acquittal should be a live possibility in a fair trial. Most people on here (and in media) view it as a foregone conclusion that Chauvin should be convicted, and they are fine with this being a show trial as long as they get the outcome they want.

Yeah, I kinda think a video of Chauvin kneeing him in the airway for eight minutes might help with that. Is it honestly your contention that if Floyd had been laying face down the exact amount of time he was, but with the sole difference of not being touched by Chauvin or any of the other officers, he'd have died anyway? Show your work.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also, this thread is not about his guilt or innocence but about the fairness of the trial.
Threat of violent and deadly riots restarting means that Chauvin is not getting a fair trial in Minneapolis.

It's not a show trial in any sense of that phrase. And I think your insinuations that Chauvin is innocent BUT the jury will knowingly and intentionally convict, but only because they don't want those pitchfork-wielding Negro hordes to burn the city down on acquittal, is a fantasy.

1. It's not "Negro hordes", it's multiracial hordes of BLMers/Antifas. A lot of BLM supporters, particularly in a place like Minneapolis, and therefore a lot of George Floyd rioters, have been white.
2. That is not a fantasy. We have all seen the deadly riots this Summer. We have also seen riots restarting after an unfavorable decision. For example in Ferguson after the Michael Brown's mother's boyfriend called on the rioters to "burn this bitch down".

Maybe, if Officer Chauvin didn't want to be judged in Minneapolis by Minnesotans, he should have been more careful to take Mr. Floyd into custody in Minneapoiis without killing him in Minneapolis. I suspect that you'd be saying exactly that if the roles were reversed, and a black Minneapolis Antifa activist had ended up causing the death of a white Minneapolis Police officer in some protest scuffle or whatever.

Change of venue should be given whenever a fair trial cannot be conducted in the county in question. It would still be in Minnesota, by Minnesotans,
In your hypothetical case (although it is close to a real murder of a retired police captain David Dorn by a BLM rioter in St. Louis) you would have to show why the case cannot be fairly tried in county. For example, were there months of rioting to "protest" the death like with George Floyd?

If some snowflake lefty here asked, "how can De'Vante hope to expect a fair trail in Minneapolis," it wouldn't surprise me to hear you say some variant of, "Sorry, juries are impaneled in the locality of the offense. Them's the rules, and they're well known. Don't shit in your own back yard if you don't want to be judged by your neighbors."

Rules allow for a change of venue under certain circumstances, and you can bet the refused change of venue motion will be part of an appeal once this show trial is over.

 

[Derec]

For one thing, not all of the jurors live in Minneapolis (https://www.startribune.com/who-are-the-jurors-in-the-derek-chauvin-trial-for-the-killing-of-george-floyd-in-minneapolis/600037651/).

Not within city limits, but within Hennepin County. Which is still core metro Minneapolis. To be fair, the trial should be moved outside the Twin Cities metro area.

And, of course, you have presented not one iota of evidence to support your hypothesis.

I have. But as usual, you ignore any evidence going against your preconceived notions.

 

[Derec]

Derec you (and a few others here) appear to be absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that

Wrong. The burden of proof should be on the prosecution.

[*]having someone kneel on your neck for 9 minutes in addition to two more people kneeling on other parts of your body, will not cause death.

Since Chauvin did not block his airway (which we know since Floyd could still talk) I do not see why that would be deadly barring a fentanyl overdose and resultant pulmonary edema.

[*]And equally convinced that Floyd would have died that day, at that time regardless of the presence of the police

It certainly hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he would not have.

[*]and that moreover, allowing faster medical care could not possibly have saved his life.

Only good point. Chauvin et al were negligent (no doubt because they believed he was malingering in order to avoid going to jail - something common when arresting people, esp. frequent flyers) but not murderous.

Can you please explain for us what evidence you believe establishes ALL THREE of these cliaims beyond a shaodow of a doubt

Excuse me. But when did the burden of proof get reversed in this country?

such that, according to you, the only posible guilty verdict could stem from fear of post-acquittal violence?

I did not say that. My point is the opposite. I said that an acquittal is virtually impossible because the jurors will be in fear of causing further deadly rioting should they vote to acquit.
Basically there are three possibilities.
1. Jurors believe Chauvin is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - vote to convict.
2. Jurors do not believe Chauvin is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - nevertheless vote to convict due to threats of violence.
3. Jurors do not believe Chauvin is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - vote to acquit despite threats of violence.

I think due to human nature 3 is unlikely, but the point is that once Chauvin is convicted there is no way to know whether 1 or 2 is true, making this not a fair trial.

(I guess you could also show how you know these jurors will definitely be swayed by this threat of violence.)

Most people don't want to see themselves as responsible for destruction in their own city.

 

[Elixir]

Since Chauvin did not block his airway (which we know since Floyd could still talk)

BULLSHIT. You know so much that just ain't so, Dererc. (Like how we're going to be down below 15k COVID deaths per day by Sunday - did you donate to TFT yet?)

FACT: A person can vocalize without ANY air passing the vocal chords and can "talk" with far less air than is needed to sustain life, and without inhaling (a life-sustaining component of "breathing") at all.

an acquittal is virtually impossible because the jurors will be in fear of causing further deadly rioting should they vote to acquit.

Good thing white supremacists don't ever get violent.
Oh, wait...

 

[Derec]

FACT: A person can vocalize without ANY air passing the vocal chords and can "talk" with far less air than is needed to sustain life, and without inhaling (a life-sustaining component of "breathing") at all.

[citation needed]

Good thing white supremacists don't ever get violent.
Oh, wait...

Nobody is saying they don't. But contrary to left-wing propaganda, they are not the only ones who do.
Left-wing radicals, such as #BLM and Antifa, get plenty violent. As we have seen during all the left-wing riots, esp. since #BLM came on the scene in 2014.

 

[laughing dog]

For one thing, not all of the jurors live in Minneapolis (https://www.startribune.com/who-are-the-jurors-in-the-derek-chauvin-trial-for-the-killing-of-george-floyd-in-minneapolis/600037651/).

Not within city limits, but within Hennepin County. Which is still core metro Minneapolis. To be fair, the trial should be moved outside the Twin Cities metro area.

You are mistaken. At least one lives in Wright County. Hennepin county is more than Minneapolis - it ranges from the posh Eden Prairie to more working class Bloomington and up and coming Maple Grove.

There is no evidence-based rationale for moving the trial to out-state Minnesota.

I have. But as usual, you ignore any evidence going against your preconceived notions.

Your fear is not actual evidence.

 

[Rhea]

FACT: A person can vocalize without ANY air passing the vocal chords and can "talk" with far less air than is needed to sustain life, and without inhaling (a life-sustaining component of "breathing") at all.

Indeed, when my roommate had a life-threatening asthma attack such that she was unable to breathe sufficiently to live, she was able to ask me with her voice to rush her to the emergency room, and, along the way as her O2 count diminished, answer “still here” between gasping wheezing attempts to get enough oxygen.


But more obvious testimony has already been given from medical soures, with much more education and training than Derec, that his claim is physiologically false. But Derec pretends he has never heard it.

“The ability to speak does not mean the patient is without danger,” said Dr. Mariell Jessup, chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association.

“To speak, you only have to move air through the upper airways and the vocal cords, a very small amount,” and that does not mean that enough air is getting down into the lungs where it can supply the rest of the body with oxygen, said Dr. Gary Weissman, a lung specialist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The false perception that someone who can speak can also take in enough air is not part of any known police training curriculum or practices, according to experts on police training and use of force.

“I’m not aware of any standard training of police officers that lets them know, ‘Hey, if someone is still able to talk they are not having difficulty breathing, so you can just keep doing what you are doing,'" said Craig Futterman, professor at University of Chicago Law School and an expert on use of force.

My prediction, he will continue to pretend he has never heard a doctor say you can talk while still being in danger of a blocked airway AND a police trainer saying they have never trained police to think that talking means they are getting enough air.

We will see several posters continue to pretend they have never heard this, and be obvious that they have never checked or done research on their own.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But there’s no physical evidence of asphyxiation. The Occam’s razor approach is that Floyd’s various morbidities with his drug use caused tachycardia. The excited delirium of being arrested put him over.

What evidence of asphyxiation would you expect to see?? It doesn't leave much evidence other than things like fibers from something placed over the mouth and nose, or bruising from the pressure. We know there was pressure which could cause bruising, nothing was over the face, what could the coroner see?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not really -


(https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/evidence-details-fentanyl-levels-george-floyds-body/89-70cf8552-1810-4462-a726-077b897e7378)

Jebus. I’m not saying that 11 ng/ml of fentanyl killed him. But if found at his home like this it’s an obvious OD. And others OD at 3 ng/ml. Err, okay.

The level to OD with with opioids is highly variable based on habituation.

 

[laughing dog]

FACT: A person can vocalize without ANY air passing the vocal chords and can "talk" with far less air than is needed to sustain life, and without inhaling (a life-sustaining component of "breathing") at all.

Indeed, when my roommate had a life-threatening asthma attack such that she was unable to breathe sufficiently to live, she was able to ask me with her voice to rush her to the emergency room, and, along the way as her O2 count diminished, answer “still here” between gasping wheezing attempts to get enough oxygen.


But more obvious testimony has already been given from medical soures, with much more education and training than Derec, that his claim is physiologically false. But Derec pretends he has never heard it.

“The ability to speak does not mean the patient is without danger,” said Dr. Mariell Jessup, chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association.

“To speak, you only have to move air through the upper airways and the vocal cords, a very small amount,” and that does not mean that enough air is getting down into the lungs where it can supply the rest of the body with oxygen, said Dr. Gary Weissman, a lung specialist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The false perception that someone who can speak can also take in enough air is not part of any known police training curriculum or practices, according to experts on police training and use of force.

“I’m not aware of any standard training of police officers that lets them know, ‘Hey, if someone is still able to talk they are not having difficulty breathing, so you can just keep doing what you are doing,'" said Craig Futterman, professor at University of Chicago Law School and an expert on use of force.

My prediction, he will continue to pretend he has never heard a doctor say you can talk while still being in danger of a blocked airway AND a police trainer saying they have never trained police to think that talking means they are getting enough air.

We will see several posters continue to pretend they have never heard this, and be obvious that they have never checked or done research on their own.

Not only that, but it is a smokescreen. Officer Chauvin could have easily shifted his knee from Mr. Floyd's neck to Mr. Floyd's shoulder (which is an approved method) without sacrificing Officer Chauvin's control or safety when Mr. Floyd said he could not breathe. Of course, that would have meant Officer Chauvin respected Mr. Floyd as a human being.

 

[LoAmmo]

Not only that, but it is a smokescreen. Officer Chauvin could have easily shifted his knee from Mr. Floyd's neck to Mr. Floyd's shoulder (which is an approved method) without sacrificing Officer Chauvin's control or safety when Mr. Floyd said he could not breathe. Of course, that would have meant Officer Chauvin respected Mr. Floyd as a human being.

This is quite right, of course, but good luck getting posters who don't respect Mr. Floyd as a human being to find any fault with a police officer who didn't respect Mr. Floyd as a human being.

What's maddening is that even IF we accept (for instance) Derec's premise that Floyd's death was due mostly to his heart condition and drug use, there's STILL the contributing factor of Officer Chauvin's knee to contend with--a role for which HE needs to be accountable for. Derec neatly cuts Chauvin's role out of the equation--which is, frankly, absurd on the face of it.

The drug use, that's George Floyd's fault. He's the one who needs to pay for that. (And most here would probably agree that he did.) The heart condition, that's some combination of nobody's "fault," and George Floyd's fault. Officer Chauvin's knee on his neck was Officer Chauvin's fault, and he's the one accountable for his contributing role in it, even IF one clings to the fantasy that it was a minor role.

Unless, of course, Derec agrees that if I push a diabetic 98-year-old man on supplemental oxygen down a flight of stairs and he dies, I'm absolved of any responsibility because, hey, that guy was a fucking wreck. Dead man walking. He'd probably have died later that day anyway.

That's about how stupid it is to be hair-splitting over "whether or not" Chauvin is culpable in George Floyd's death.

 

[Elixir]

FACT: A person can vocalize without ANY air passing the vocal chords and can "talk" with far less air than is needed to sustain life, and without inhaling (a life-sustaining component of "breathing") at all.

[citation needed]

No, no citation is needed. Educate yourself, or provide a citation for YOUR stupid/ignorant assertion.
Are you ANY kind of medic, Derec? If so, I think your cert should be revoked. The A,B,C's of even basic first aid covers "B"{ (breathing) in the very first hour - first session usually.
Did you ever hear the common expression "gasping for breath"? Why are you the only one here who is ignorant/stupid enough to think a person cant say they can't breathe while being asphyxiated?

Good thing white supremacists don't ever get violent.
Oh, wait...

Nobody is saying they don't. But contrary to left-wing propaganda, they are not the only ones who do.

But the Gospel according to Derec states that juries are ONLY swayed by fear of "antifa" violence (property damage) and have no fear of murderous right wing white supremacist mobs.
Idiocy.

Left-wing radicals, such as #BLM and Antifa, get plenty violent. As we have seen during all the left-wing riots, esp. since #BLM came on the scene in 2014.

Yeah I remember on January 6th when they tried to overturn a National election - oh wait (again) - that was YOUR boys.
Tell us again what Lib-rul you are.

 

[Elixir]

But there’s no physical evidence of asphyxiation.

As usual, Trausti swallows the right wing propaganda lie, hook, line and sinker.
Two autopsy reports said the manner of George Floyd’s death was a homicide. Neither said the cause of his death was a fentanyl overdose.

The two doctors who conducted the autopsy concluded that Floyd died of asphyxiation, or suffocation.

 

[Gospel]

3 minutes of kneeling on an unresponsive person's kneck.

 

[laughing dog]

Snopes.com has a very interesting long report on George Floyd's death (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/)

As to his cause of death

Firstly, on May 29, 2020, court documents revealed the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s investigation into Floyd’s death showed “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxiation,” and that “potential intoxicants” and preexisting cardiovascular disease “likely contributed to his death.” (Note: Coronary artery disease and hypertension typically increase patients’ risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes, and asphyxia, or suffocation, does not always leave physical signs, according to doctors.)

Two days later, the county released a statement that attributed Floyd’s cause of death to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” — which essentially means he died because his heart and lungs stopped while he was being restrained by police. That announcement came just hours after Floyd’s family released findings of a separate, private autopsy that determined Floyd had indeed died from a combination of Chauvin’s knee on his neck and pressure on his back from other the officers. (A copy of that autopsy with all of its details has not been made public.)

It reports about the level of fetanyl

More Specifically, Floyd tested positive for 11 ng/mL of fentanyl — which is a synthetic opioid pain reliever — and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine, or meth, though it’s unclear by what method the intoxicants got into his bloodstream or for what reasons.

But more complex is proving whether “he was high” at the time of his fatal encounter with police. While everyone’s reaction to and tolerance for such drugs varies, and the effects of mixing drugs can be totally unpredictable, lab technicians say fentanyl slowly leaves users’ systems, mostly via urination, over the course of three days from when they first shot up. Additionally, they consider “the presence of fentanyl above 0.20 ng/mL” — which is significantly less than the amount found in Floyd’s system — to be “a strong indicator that the patient has used fentanyl,” according to Mayo Clinic Laboratories.

Some of the above repeats what others have written. But the Snopes report is a pretty interesting read. In particular, the end part of the report has

Why People Draw Attention to Criminal Histories of Black Men Who Die in Police Custody

For decades, corners of the internet and journalists have highlighted the criminal records of non-white people killed by authorities or caught in viral videos, no matter the relevancy of the rap sheets......
Of people calling attention to Floyd’s criminal past, specifically, he wrote:

It fits into what psychologists have called the just-world hypothesis, which is a cognitive bias where people believe that the world is just and orderly, and people get what they deserve. It is difficult for people to believe that bad things can happen to good people or to people who don’t deserve it. This is because if people know that these things do happen, they have to decide whether they want to do something about it or sit by silently knowing that there is injustice happening around them.