(08-31-2020 08:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You also leave out the direct quote that if he was found dead at home WITH NO OTHER APPARENT CAUSES this COULD be an OD.

Baker denotes the actual word *would* in the filing. I suggest *you* stop changing the language quoted.

Quote:Notice how all of the language is couched in uncertainty

'Would' denotes a fairly decent of certainty. Quite a bit more than the word 'could' that you plopped down in there. Funny that.

Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would," the lawyer did (it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

The whole debate reeks of "reasonable doubt to me", which is all Tanq is saying - that the prosecutor's job just got harder. I am not sure what lad is arguing - that it was always easy and still is?

I still think the prosecutor will offer Chauvin a plea deal, one that the riotous/righteous mob will not like or accept, and it will be taken by the conspiracy theorists as just more evidence of the systemic racism that permeates the US of A, that racist, oppressive country..

More rioting will ensue, Every rioter who votes will (or will have, if the riots are scheduled for after the election) vote Biden.

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You also leave out the direct quote that if he was found dead at home WITH NO OTHER APPARENT CAUSES this COULD be an OD.

Baker denotes the actual word *would* in the filing. I suggest *you* stop changing the language quoted.

Quote:Notice how all of the language is couched in uncertainty

'Would' denotes a fairly decent of certainty. Quite a bit more than the word 'could' that you plopped down in there. Funny that.

Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

(08-31-2020 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Baker denotes the actual word *would* in the filing. I suggest *you* stop changing the language quoted.


'Would' denotes a fairly decent of certainty. Quite a bit more than the word 'could' that you plopped down in there. Funny that.

Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

Curious how TOD works. If a patient comes in DOA what do they list? The time they roll in or perhaps they don't assign a TOD if the patient doesn't die while in the facility? I have no idea how this works. He was on video (on the street) motionless at 8:27 pm... did he roll into the ER ALIVE thereafter? To my amateur mind, it seems that TOD of 9:25 doesn't signify much of an attempt at resuscitation. Maybe ruowls could chime in on this if he's following this thread...

We are getting back to levels of Fentanyl and whether it not it could be fatal. IMO opining about this seems somewhat incomplete if you aren't taking into account the guy's prior history of using narcotics.

I'd be curious to hear what other experts have to say about this "new" information. My guess is that their opinions (positive or negative when it comes to Fentanyl's possible contribution to Floyd's death) won't change much.

OK... trying to understand this... don't freak out on me, Tanq.

I assume the first two pages are lawyer's notes from the meeting? These clearly say "could".

And then in the typewritten notes it's the same sentence describing Baker's opinion however this time it's "would".

Obviously "would"/"could" is a big deal... why the change?

Who are these attorneys? The ones representing Chauvin?

(08-31-2020 09:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

Curious how TOD works. If a patient comes in DOA what do they list? The time they roll in or perhaps they don't assign a TOD if the patient doesn't die while in the facility? I have no idea how this works. He was on video (on the street) motionless at 8:27 pm... did he roll into the ER ALIVE thereafter? To my amateur mind, it seems that TOD of 9:25 doesn't signify much of an attempt at resuscitation. Maybe ruowls could chime in on this if he's following this thread...

The issue on the time is the issue that was squawked about --- the accuracy of post-morten (autopsy) screening versus screening from 'fresh' live or freshly dead samples.

The issue is that the longer the fluids are in the body, the more processes that are not common with living processes happen on the tissues and fluids.

It isnt like that 'right at death' some magic fluid results elf flits into the scene, waves a magic wand, and the fluids are all automatically changed.

My guest of a couple weeks ago opined that results taken as an in vivo sample are the best; but samples that are up to four hours 'fresh' are still highly accurate. It is only when you get to time periods between death and autopsy (i.e. days, not hours) that the results go kerflooey.

This issue seems to be highlighted when in the notes it states Dr Baker explains to the prosecutor that 'hospital sample' refers to the samples taken as one is rolled in, or immediately thereafter.

Quote:We are getting back to levels of Fentanyl and whether it not it could be fatal. IMO opining about this seems somewhat incomplete if you aren't taking into account the guy's prior history of using narcotics.

"[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances"

"AB [the Chief Hennepin County Medical Examiner Baker] said if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death."

Quote:I'd be curious to hear what other experts have to say about this "new" information. My guess is that their opinions (positive or negative when it comes to Fentanyl's possible contribution to Floyd's death) won't change much.

Here is one that has zero skin in the game -- the Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner.

"[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances"

"AB [the Chief Hennepin County Medical Examiner Baker] said if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death."

Quote:Dr. Andrew Baker is a graduate of the University of Iowa College of Medicine. He completed his residency in pathology at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and completed a year of specialized training in forensic pathology in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is board-certified in anatomic and clinical pathology, with subspecialty certification in forensic pathology. He is a fellow of the College of American Pathologists (CAP), and serves on the CAP Forensic Pathology Committee. He is a fellow of the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, having served as the Chair of the Academy’s Pathology/Biology section and currently serving on the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee.

(08-31-2020 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

Curious how TOD works. If a patient comes in DOA what do they list? The time they roll in or perhaps they don't assign a TOD if the patient doesn't die while in the facility? I have no idea how this works. He was on video (on the street) motionless at 8:27 pm... did he roll into the ER ALIVE thereafter? To my amateur mind, it seems that TOD of 9:25 doesn't signify much of an attempt at resuscitation. Maybe ruowls could chime in on this if he's following this thread...

The issue on the time is the issue that was squawked about --- the accuracy of post-morten (autopsy) screening versus screening from 'fresh' live or freshly dead samples.

The issue is that the longer the fluids are in the body, the more processes that are not common with living processes happen on the tissues and fluids.

It isnt like that 'right at death' some magic fluid results elf flits into the scene, waves a magic wand, and the fluids are all automatically changed.

My guest of a couple weeks ago opined that results taken as an in vivo sample are the best; but samples that are up to four hours 'fresh' are still highly accurate. It is only when you get to time periods between death and autopsy (i.e. days, not hours) that the results go kerflooey.

This issue seems to be highlighted when in the notes it states Dr Baker explains to the prosecutor that 'hospital sample' refers to the samples taken as one is rolled in, or immediately thereafter.

I assume that there will be experts brought in (like the neuropsychiatrist whose article I referenced a few weeks ago) that opine that Floyd was not behaving like a person who was OD'ing from narcotics in that video.

I doubt the jury is swayed that the prolonged knee to the neck was not THE major contributing factor in Floyd's death. It's going to be hard for Chauvin's team to overcome that video IMO.

(08-31-2020 09:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

Curious how TOD works. If a patient comes in DOA what do they list? The time they roll in or perhaps they don't assign a TOD if the patient doesn't die while in the facility? I have no idea how this works. He was on video (on the street) motionless at 8:27 pm... did he roll into the ER ALIVE thereafter? To my amateur mind, it seems that TOD of 9:25 doesn't signify much of an attempt at resuscitation. Maybe ruowls could chime in on this if he's following this thread...

The issue on the time is the issue that was squawked about --- the accuracy of post-morten (autopsy) screening versus screening from 'fresh' live or freshly dead samples.

The issue is that the longer the fluids are in the body, the more processes that are not common with living processes happen on the tissues and fluids.

It isnt like that 'right at death' some magic fluid results elf flits into the scene, waves a magic wand, and the fluids are all automatically changed.

My guest of a couple weeks ago opined that results taken as an in vivo sample are the best; but samples that are up to four hours 'fresh' are still highly accurate. It is only when you get to time periods between death and autopsy (i.e. days, not hours) that the results go kerflooey.

This issue seems to be highlighted when in the notes it states Dr Baker explains to the prosecutor that 'hospital sample' refers to the samples taken as one is rolled in, or immediately thereafter.

I assume that there will be experts brought in (like the neuropsychiatrist whose article I referenced a few weeks ago) that opine that Floyd was not behaving like a person who was OD'ing from narcotics in that video.

I doubt the jury is swayed that the prolonged knee to the neck was not THE major contributing factor in Floyd's death. It's going to be hard for Chauvin's team to overcome that video IMO.

As we all know from instant reply, the video is always definitive.

Probably lots of "experts" testifying on both sides. Certainly plenty here.

So what is the legal significance of the "major" COD as opposed to other CODs?

It's just not that simple.

I wonder what deal will be offered/accepted. I don't think this goes to trial. Just my humble expert opinion.

(08-31-2020 09:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My point exactly - Baker did not denote the word "would,"

Were you a party to that conversation?

Quote:the lawyer did

Wow apparently so. You sure get around.

Quote:(it wasnt in quotes like other lines were).

So your explanation is that the lawyer is lying to his boss about what was said in the conversation. lad, I hate to tell you this, but words are important. Most attorneys wouldnt make this bush league mistake that you ascribe to her, especially in something this important.

There is a *significant* difference between 'would' and 'could' -- one that most every attorney, no matter how stupid, would understand. One that you glibly and fairly idiotically simply explain away for no reason. But, I guess that this attorney *is* that stupid according to you. Glad you were listening in, or omniscient. Thank you for your worldly background on this.

Please do tell what other portions of that memo we should magically 'wipe away' and replace with verbiage that most would understand have vast differences with? Since you are undeniably stating this is the case, i am interested to know what other verbiage gets 'wiped away' in the LAD ALLKNOWING OMNISCIENCE TEST.

Cha cha cha. At this point you are seriously making **** up out of no basis whatsoever and seeing what sticks to the wall. Good grief.

I am so glad you are so fing omniscient and telling the world precisely what happened and why, even when you had zero to do with that conversation. You should really use those powers of omniscience for world good instead of hole digging and hydrology work.

Curious how TOD works. If a patient comes in DOA what do they list? The time they roll in or perhaps they don't assign a TOD if the patient doesn't die while in the facility? I have no idea how this works. He was on video (on the street) motionless at 8:27 pm... did he roll into the ER ALIVE thereafter? To my amateur mind, it seems that TOD of 9:25 doesn't signify much of an attempt at resuscitation. Maybe ruowls could chime in on this if he's following this thread...

The issue on the time is the issue that was squawked about --- the accuracy of post-morten (autopsy) screening versus screening from 'fresh' live or freshly dead samples.

The issue is that the longer the fluids are in the body, the more processes that are not common with living processes happen on the tissues and fluids.

It isnt like that 'right at death' some magic fluid results elf flits into the scene, waves a magic wand, and the fluids are all automatically changed.

My guest of a couple weeks ago opined that results taken as an in vivo sample are the best; but samples that are up to four hours 'fresh' are still highly accurate. It is only when you get to time periods between death and autopsy (i.e. days, not hours) that the results go kerflooey.

This issue seems to be highlighted when in the notes it states Dr Baker explains to the prosecutor that 'hospital sample' refers to the samples taken as one is rolled in, or immediately thereafter.

I assume that there will be experts brought in (like the neuropsychiatrist whose article I referenced a few weeks ago) that opine that Floyd was not behaving like a person who was OD'ing from narcotics in that video.

I doubt the jury is swayed that the prolonged knee to the neck was not THE major contributing factor in Floyd's death. It's going to be hard for Chauvin's team to overcome that video IMO.

I guess you should bone up on what 'reasonable doubt' means. Especially in light of what Dr Baker is noted as saying in the disclosures.

(08-31-2020 09:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  OK... trying to understand this... don't freak out on me, Tanq.

I assume the first two pages are lawyer's notes from the meeting? These clearly say "could".

And then in the typewritten notes it's the same sentence describing Baker's opinion however this time it's "would".

Obviously "would"/"could" is a big deal... why the change?

Who are these attorneys? The ones representing Chauvin?

The lawyers with the typewritten notes are the Hennepin County prosecutors. That makes it far more impactful.

Second the handwritten notes are from a different session. The handwritten notes detail that 'Present were Matt Frank, David Voight, John Keller, Dionne Dodd, Beth Stark.' Further, in the handwritten notes they '[m]et w/ Dr Baker at AGO' (I presume Atty General's Office). And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. The meeting that the typewritten notes came from include Dr Baker, 'Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton and [the author, Amy Sweasy].' The meeting that the typewritten notes emanated from was done on Microsoft Teams and that 'All three of us were in different locations.'

The first two pages are notes from a meeting with the state AG Office attorneys. The typewritten notes are from a previous meeting with the Hennepin County DA office.

The issue of the handwritten notes and the typewritten notes is not one of a transcription error between the two.

As for 'why the change' --- that is a question for Dr Baker.

It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

Funny, usually it it left saying the right is ignoring the science. Here the left is saying, to hell with the science. Science is open to interpretation, except climate science.

Now OO's question of a couple months ago arise again - what is the history of the "knee on the neck hold" - has it's usage ever before been related to a death in custody?

What I have not seen is any hint that this happened because Floyd was black. No hint that this happened because the Minneapolis police are racist. That seems to be a foregone conclusion in the minds of the rioters and their supporters. No evidence at all that this was a racist act on the part of anybody.

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

I am ascribing them to the crowd you stand with, 93 - BLM, the "protesters", and the Biden voters camp. I agree you stand out on the far right of that crowd - fairer and more balanced than the crowd you run with.

I have said two things from very early on:
1. The DA will have to offer a plea deal for a much lesser offense.
2. if offered, and especially if accepted, we will have more rioting and destruction as
the left protests the "injustice".


Do you think I am wrong? If that happens will you be one of the lonely voices on the left saying loudly it was a good deal? Be careful, you may make yourself a target if you speak too well and too loudly that it was a good deal. Or will you quietly go about your morning coffee as cities burn?

In an ideal world, no person - PERSON! - should ever die in custody, or be shot by cops, but we don't live in that world. I don't see any evidence that Floyd, or Blake, or Rice or Garner were the result of of racism run wild and loose. But we keep hearing the same names over and over. Ten years from now, we will be hearing the names Blake and Floyd. Screw the evidence, it was racism, that's all we have heard and will hear.

No doubt that's the way it used to be. I remember Chaney, and Goodwin, and Schwerner. I have seen the pictures (black and white!) of lynchings. But there is little evidence that it is the same now. Only lynchings I see are the legal lynchings of cops. Yet we have rioting coast to coast because some people say it is racism.. I am tired of the this fabrication every time a black man suffers at the hands of white cops, that it was all just unfettered racism. Stand up against this kneejerk reaction, unless you prefer kneeling.

And then a couple of guilty white liberals here dispute the meaning of the toxicology. Sounds like more of the same.

Sorry, 93, you sound like a reasoned and reasonable man, easily in the top 1% of liberals. This is likely my last rodeo. I am very sorry to see the world in this mess as I leave it. Very frustrating to see the decades of MLK and peaceful marches and incremental progress result in mindless and pointless rioting.

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

Very similar here. My comments are that these tox screens and evals are not conclusive that fentanyl either killed Floyd, or even played a role.

But saying that they are not conclusive is not the same as saying they're irrelevant.

I actually think we're all on the same page that this isn't a clear cut case, and we're arguing semantics/point of view (unless Tanq is trying to argue that fentanyl was absolutely the cause of death).

(09-01-2020 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  OK... trying to understand this... don't freak out on me, Tanq.

I assume the first two pages are lawyer's notes from the meeting? These clearly say "could".

And then in the typewritten notes it's the same sentence describing Baker's opinion however this time it's "would".

Obviously "would"/"could" is a big deal... why the change?

Who are these attorneys? The ones representing Chauvin?

The lawyers with the typewritten notes are the Hennepin County prosecutors. That makes it far more impactful.

Second the handwritten notes are from a different session. The handwritten notes detail that 'Present were Matt Frank, David Voight, John Keller, Dionne Dodd, Beth Stark.' Further, in the handwritten notes they '[m]et w/ Dr Baker at AGO' (I presume Atty General's Office). And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. The meeting that the typewritten notes came from include Dr Baker, 'Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton and [the author, Amy Sweasy].' The meeting that the typewritten notes emanated from was done on Microsoft Teams and that 'All three of us were in different locations.'

The first two pages are notes from a meeting with the state AG Office attorneys. The typewritten notes are from a previous meeting with the Hennepin County DA office.

The issue of the handwritten notes and the typewritten notes is not one of a transcription error between the two.

As for 'why the change' --- that is a question for Dr Baker.

Thanks for the clarification there - this would have helped our back and forth get nipped in the bud much earlier. I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

Funny, usually it it left saying the right is ignoring the science. Here the left is saying, to hell with the science. Science is open to interpretation, except climate science.

Now OO's question of a couple months ago arise again - what is the history of the "knee on the neck hold" - has it's usage ever before been related to a death in custody?

What I have not seen is any hint that this happened because Floyd was black. No hint that this happened because the Minneapolis police are racist. That seems to be a foregone conclusion in the minds of the rioters and their supporters. No evidence at all that this was a racist act on the part of anybody.

Included in the motion to dismiss where I pulled the above information are more documents, one per each exhibit.

In those there are various items:

MPD Defensive Tactics training video
MPD Policy training materials
MPD training materials on EXD
MPD Defense and Control Response Training Guide

All of these mention the use of neck restraints.

The one for EXD relates to use of control on detainees showing excited delirium syndrome -- the officer videos of Floyd very much track the symptoms of this, and this is one of the issues that can easily and often occur with large fentanyl dosages.

The picture in this particular manual is quite striking -- if someone can tell me how to directly embed an image into a post I will do so. The picture on page 5, under the heading "They are in handcuffs -- now what" shows the restraint position of three officers kneeling on the suspect. One at the feet, one at the mid back, and one with a knee on the neck.

(09-01-2020 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

I am ascribing them to the crowd you stand with, 93 - BLM, the "protesters", and the Biden voters camp. I agree you stand out on the far right of that crowd - fairer and more balanced than the crowd you run with.

Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.

Quote:Do you think I am wrong? If that happens will you be one of the lonely voices on the left saying loudly it was a good deal? Be careful, you may make yourself a target if you speak too well and too loudly that it was a good deal. Or will you quietly go about your morning coffee as cities burn?

In an ideal world, no person - PERSON! - should ever die in custody, or be shot by cops, but we don't live in that world. I don't see any evidence that Floyd, or Blake, or Rice or Garner were the result of of racism run wild and loose. But we keep hearing the same names over and over. Ten years from now, we will be hearing the names Blake and Floyd. Screw the evidence, it was racism, that's all we have heard and will hear.

No doubt that's the way it used to be. I remember Chaney, and Goodwin, and Schwerner. I have seen the pictures (black and white!) of lynchings. But there is little evidence that it is the same now. Only lynchings I see are the legal lynchings of cops. Yet we have rioting coast to coast because some people say it is racism.. I am tired of the this fabrication every time a black man suffers at the hands of white cops, that it was all just unfettered racism. Stand up against this kneejerk reaction, unless you prefer kneeling.

And then a couple of guilty white liberals here dispute the meaning of the toxicology. Sounds like more of the same.

We're disputing the interpretation of the toxicology. I think that's fair game. Especially when this dispute started with the claim that Floyd took 11 mg of Fentanyl.

Quote:Sorry, 93, you sound like a reasoned and reasonable man, easily in the top 1% of liberals. This is likely my last rodeo. I am very sorry to see the world in this mess as I leave it. Very frustrating to see the decades of MLK and peaceful marches and incremental progress result in mindless and pointless rioting.

I hate these riots as well. I think everybody here supports peaceful protest. I'm pretty sure that nobody here is in favor of rioting/looting/violence. These riots take away from the underlying issue that was being protested in the first place. I do wish the Democrats came out more forcefully against the riots.

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge.

The charge leaves no room for a lesser included charge. Chauvin is charged with 2nd degree murder based on a felony murder rule.

The underlying felony is a supposed felony assault on Floyd. MN is one of only a handful of states that say the underlying action can be an 'entry felony' to bootstrap this to murder.

The classic example is two people commit a bank robbery, during the course of which in the escape one of them runs into a pedestrian on the curb, the pedestrian konks his head on sidewalk and dies. Both members of the holdup can be charged with felony murder because they were committing a felony, during which someone died. Even the lookout can be charged with the murder.

40-some odd states refuse to let the 'assault' (in this case) be the felony that bootstraps the felony murder charge. MN does.

The way this is charged is either going to be a murder conviction, or an assault conviction.

In a normal 2nd degree murder, they require an intent to kill. In those cases the underlying included charges include a manslaughter count (maybe of varying degrees). But, again, the charge from the state here is felony murder, not the normal 2nd degree murder.

By potentially overcharging here, the prosecutors kind have locked themselves into a home run 2nd degree conviction, or a piss ant assault if they retreat at all.

(09-01-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

Funny, usually it it left saying the right is ignoring the science. Here the left is saying, to hell with the science. Science is open to interpretation, except climate science.

Now OO's question of a couple months ago arise again - what is the history of the "knee on the neck hold" - has it's usage ever before been related to a death in custody?

What I have not seen is any hint that this happened because Floyd was black. No hint that this happened because the Minneapolis police are racist. That seems to be a foregone conclusion in the minds of the rioters and their supporters. No evidence at all that this was a racist act on the part of anybody.

Included in the motion to dismiss where I pulled the above information are more documents, one per each exhibit.

In those there are various items:

MPD Defensive Tactics training video
MPD Policy training materials
MPD training materials on EXD
MPD Defense and Control Response Training Guide

All of these mention the use of neck restraints.

The one for EXD relates to use of control on detainees showing excited delirium syndrome -- the officer videos of Floyd very much track the symptoms of this, and this is one of the issues that can easily and often occur with large fentanyl dosages.

The picture in this particular manual is quite striking -- if someone can tell me how to directly embed an image into a post I will do so. The picture on page 5, under the heading "They are in handcuffs -- now what" shows the restraint position of three officers kneeling on the suspect. One at the feet, one at the mid back, and one with a knee on the neck.

Well, THAT is not going to make a conviction any easier.

But they have the video - of a cop doing exactly as the manual suggests.

As a gambler, I have to be very careful of judging my choices by the results. Did I make a bad fold? I cannot say it was was bad, just because subsequent cards would have made me a winner. Did I make a bad call? I cannot say it was bad because subsequent cards made me a loser. In cards, I have to judge each action by the situation at the time I made the action, not by how it turned out.

Floyd ended up dead. Probably the only thing everybody can agree on. But was there any reason, at any time, by any person, to think that would be the result? I think not. I think that is judging the action by the results. Possibly, the prosecution can argue that in the judgement of an average cop, 8:46 was too much - but then where is the cut off? six minutes? eight minutes? 8:45?

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  OK... trying to understand this... don't freak out on me, Tanq.

I assume the first two pages are lawyer's notes from the meeting? These clearly say "could".

And then in the typewritten notes it's the same sentence describing Baker's opinion however this time it's "would".

Obviously "would"/"could" is a big deal... why the change?

Who are these attorneys? The ones representing Chauvin?

The lawyers with the typewritten notes are the Hennepin County prosecutors. That makes it far more impactful.

Second the handwritten notes are from a different session. The handwritten notes detail that 'Present were Matt Frank, David Voight, John Keller, Dionne Dodd, Beth Stark.' Further, in the handwritten notes they '[m]et w/ Dr Baker at AGO' (I presume Atty General's Office). And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. The meeting that the typewritten notes came from include Dr Baker, 'Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton and [the author, Amy Sweasy].' The meeting that the typewritten notes emanated from was done on Microsoft Teams and that 'All three of us were in different locations.'

The first two pages are notes from a meeting with the state AG Office attorneys. The typewritten notes are from a previous meeting with the Hennepin County DA office.

The issue of the handwritten notes and the typewritten notes is not one of a transcription error between the two.

As for 'why the change' --- that is a question for Dr Baker.

Thanks for the clarification there - this would have helped our back and forth get nipped in the bud much earlier. I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

Not my problem you really didnt read it fully. The differences in the memos are plain as day, tbh. Im not the one leaping to false assumptions without fully looking at the link, let alone even noting where the direct quotes came from. Please dont pin your misunderstanding on me or my actions.